BME Fire Trucks LLC v. The Cincinnati Casualty Company
Filing
59
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - Motion to File Third Amended Complaint (Dkt. 33 ) is GRANTED. Third Amended Complaint to be filed by October 29, 2024. Plaintiffs are ordered to show cause concerning diversity jurisdiction by October 29, 2024. Signed by Judge Amanda K Brailsford. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (jd)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
BME Fire Trucks LLC, an Idaho limited
liability company,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Case No. 1:23-cv-321-AKB
MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER
THE CINCINNATI CASUALTY
COMPANY, an Ohio corporation; and
DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive,
Defendants.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to File Third Amended Complaint (Dkt. 33),
which seeks to add 223 Roedel Avenue LLC (“Roedel”) as a plaintiff. Having reviewed the record
and the parties’ submissions, the Court finds that the facts and legal argument are adequately
presented and that oral argument would not significantly aid its decision-making process, and it
decides the motions on the parties’ briefing. Dist. Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 7.1(d)(1)(B); see also Fed.
R. Civ. P. 78(b) (“By rule or order, the court may provide for submitting and determining motions
on briefs, without oral hearings.”). For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the motion.
As also noted below, the Court is required to assess the impact on jurisdiction as a result
of the proposed joinder. As the Plaintiff and Roedel are unincorporated entities (here, limited
liability companies), citizenship is determined by that of their respective members. Accordingly,
the Court orders Plaintiff and Roedel to show cause, within seven days of this order, that diversity
jurisdiction exists.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1
I.
BACKGROUND
The original deadline for amending the complaint was December 22, 2023 (Dkt. 18). That
day, Plaintiff moved to amend its complaint for the first time. Defendant did not object, and
Plaintiff filed its first amended complaint on March 18, 2024. That same day, Plaintiff filed a
stipulated motion to file a second amended complaint (Dkt. 23), which Defendant did not oppose
and the Court granted on March 21. The parties then stipulated to amend the scheduling order on
April 1 (Dkt. 25), and Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint on April 2 (Dkt. 27). The
parties further extended case deadlines by way of stipulation on July 10 (Dkt. 29), although as
Defendant notes the pleading amendment deadline was not altered. Plaintiff then filed a Third
Motion to Amend its Complaint on September 11 (Dkt. 33), which by its terms also seeks to join
a new plaintiff—Roedel—and is currently at issue before the Court. 1
On July 3, 2024, Plaintiff’s deposition under Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure occurred, and either while preparing for or during the deposition it was disclosed that
Roedel paid a portion of the damages currently sought to be recovered by Plaintiff (those
concerning the gas pipeline). Roedel, apparently, owns the property and paid a portion of costs for
repairing the property. Plaintiff operates the business and claims lost business income. Plaintiff’s
proposed amendment seeks to remedy that mismatch. The parties do not dispute that Roedel is a
named insured under the same policy of insurance as Plaintiff or that Roedel’s apparent portion of
costs or damages arise out of the same underlying incident. Instead, the parties disagree regarding
1
The parties also filed a stipulation for this matter to be heard on an expedited basis
(Dkt. 49). By virtue of this order that motion is now moot. Additionally, the Court acknowledges
Docket 34 filed by Plaintiff and recognizes the instant motion is contested (Dkt. 34).
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2
whether Plaintiff has acted diligently, which is appropriately the focus under Rule 16(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Court notes, however, that much of the basis Defendant relies on to argue Plaintiff’s
lack of diligence, if true, also establishes Defendant knew Roedel had a claim and will not be
prejudiced by adding Roedel to this lawsuit. Prejudice is the key inquiry here. If, as Defendant
asserts, Plaintiff should have asserted a “modicum” of effort to properly identify damages between
Plaintiff and Roedel (Dkt. 46, p. 5), its insurer could too. Plaintiff has asserted damages to the gas
pipeline all along, states both Plaintiff and Roedel are named insureds under the policy at issue,
and argues Defendant knew of the leasing relationship between Plaintiff and Roedel from the
beginning. Defendant does not disagree. Defendant asserted numerous affirmative defenses
(Dkt. 15) and argues “Moffatt is the embodiment of both [Plaintiff] and Roedel” (Dkt. 46, p. 7).
That Plaintiff is not the real party in interest to any of the claimed damages, however, is not one
of those defenses. (Dkt. 15, pp. 11-18).
The parties were unable to stipulate to Plaintiff’s proposed amendment. As a result,
Plaintiff moved to file its Third Amended Complaint on September 11, 2024 (Dkt. 33), and
Defendant opposed the motion on October 2 (Dkt. 46). Plaintiff filed its reply on October 8
(Dkt. 47), and the motion is now ripe for consideration.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
A party seeking to amend a pleading after the deadline for amendments must satisfy the
“good cause” standard of Rule 16(b) in addition to the more liberal standard for amendment of
pleadings under Rule 15(a). Once a court sets a case schedule under Rule 16, the “schedule may
be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The “good
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3
cause” inquiry under Rule 16 “is not coextensive with an inquiry into the propriety of the
amendment under . . . Rule 15.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th
Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). The focus of the good cause analysis is on “the diligence of the party
seeking the extension.” Id. “If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” Id.; Pinnacle
Great Plains Operating Co., LLC v. Wynn Dewsnup Revocable Tr., No. 4:13-CV-00106-EJL-CW,
2015 WL 759003, at *1 (D. Idaho Feb. 23, 2015).
If good cause exists, the Court should freely grant leave to amend absent any apparent or
declared reason—such as the movant’s undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive; repeated failure
to cure deficiencies; undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowing the amendment;
or the amendment’s futility. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2); Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)
(noting court may consider whether permissive joinder comports with principles of fundamental
fairness). The Foman factors are not of equal weight. Specifically, “delay alone no matter how
lengthy is an insufficient ground for denial of leave to amend.” United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d
977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981). The most important factor is whether amendment would prejudice the
opposing party. Howey v. United States, 481 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1973). This analysis
includes considering whether adding Roedel as a party plaintiff will impact the Court’s diversity
jurisdiction. Desert Empire Bank v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 623 F.2d 1371, 1375 (9th Cir. 1980).
Finally, Rule 20 is designed to promote judicial economy and to reduce inconvenience,
delay, and added expense. Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1351 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Guedry
v. Marino, 164 F.R.D. 181, 185 (E.D. La. 1995)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Under Rule 20, the
Court must consider if the Plaintiff’s and Roedel’s asserted right to relief arise out of the same
transaction or occurrence and whether a common question of law or fact to all parties will arise in
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4
the action. Bauer v. Bonner Cnty., 2024 WL 4277902, *4 (D. Idaho Sept. 24, 2024). Claims arise
from the same transaction or occurrence if they share “similarity in the factual background of a
claim” or “arise out of a systematic pattern of events.” Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 216 F.3d
837, 842-43 (9th Cir. 2000) (Reinhardt, J., concurring) (quoting Coughlin, 130 F.3d at 1350).
III.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff argues it has been diligent and that joinder is appropriate because (1) both Plaintiff
and Roedel are named insureds under the policy of insurance at issue and the same events give rise
to potential coverage for both, and (2) the individual most knowledgeable for both Plaintiff and
Roedel, Mr. Moffatt, timely submitted the insurance claim on behalf of Plaintiff and Roedel
(Dkt. 47, p. 3) (citing Declaration of William Bennett in support of motion, ¶¶ 4, 5). Defendant
argues the motion should be denied because Plaintiff was not diligent. According to Defendant,
Mr. Moffatt had actual or constructive notice of the true state of affairs concerning damages yet
did not make an insurance claim on Roedel’s behalf or include it as a plaintiff in this lawsuit
(Dkt. 46, pp.4-5). Defendant also argues good cause has not been established under Rule 16
because Roedel’s interest was already known to Plaintiff’s principal, Mr. Moffatt, when this
lawsuit was filed, and therefore not “discovered” by Plaintiff during litigation (Dkt. 46, p. 7).
A. Joinder is Proper and Good Cause Exists to Amend the Complaint
Permissive joinder under Rule 20 contains two requirements. First, the claim of the party
to be added must share a right to relief “jointly, severally, or in the alternative” with the present
Plaintiff. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20. Second, a question of fact or law common to all plaintiffs will arise.
Id. Here, these requirements are met.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5
As to the former, the issue Plaintiff faces is that alleged damages—those concerning the
gas pipeline itself—belong to Roedel and have not been assigned or transferred. The parties do not
dispute that both Plaintiff and Roedel are named insureds under the policy at issue. Indeed,
Defendant appears to agree Roedel had a basis to make a claim under the policy at issue but did
not specifically do so (Dkt. 46, p. 5) (“. . . Roedel had a basis for submitting a claim to Cincinnati.
But Roedel did not file a claim.”). Both Plaintiff and Roedel are named insureds and they are (or
would be) jointly seeking recovery for the same underlying incident which they would share
severally. These facts satisfy the first prong of Rule 20.
As to the latter requirement, Defendants do not dispute that a basis for making claims exist
or that Mr. Moffatt submitted a claim. Instead, Defendants posit the claim was submitted on behalf
of Plaintiff alone. In response, Plaintiff posits Mr. Moffatt submitted the claim under the policy,
generally and on behalf of both Plaintiff and Roedel. Roedel and Plaintiff would be proving the
same case concerning coverage and liability (heavy trucks impacted gas lines) with the apparent
difference being the type of damages incurred (property damage versus business interruption).
There is “similarity in the factual background” of their legal claims. These satisfy the second prong
of Rule 20.
Defendant’s argument to the contrary is primarily that Plaintiff was not diligent in
identifying Roedel’s interest. As noted above, however, delay alone is insufficient. The Court is
unaware of any prejudice to Defendant in these circumstances, especially in light of Roedel’s
ability to file a separate lawsuit if it has not already. Plaintiff asserts no other discovery or delay
should be necessary, although it offers the opportunity. Defendant did not assert further discovery
would be needed. While Defendant implicitly suggests the amendment is futile due to Roedel’s
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 6
supposed failure to make an individual claim under the policy, neither party provides any legal
analysis of that point. 2
Finally, as Plaintiff notes in its reply memorandum, denial of this motion would result only
in Plaintiff filing a separate lawsuit and later consolidating it into this action (Dkt. 47, p. 5). The
Court agrees this scenario is the likely outcome and would be tantamount to granting the motion.
Requiring a new lawsuit and consolidation, however, would waste judicial and party resources.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has established good cause for its proposed amendment
and that joinder of Roedel is proper.
B. Plaintiff is Ordered to Show Cause Demonstrating Diversity Jurisdiction
In assessing whether granting Plaintiff’s motion is appropriate, the Court considers the
fundamental fairness to Defendant. This consideration includes whether adding Roedel will impact
the Court’s jurisdiction. Neither party addresses this issue, however. Plaintiff and Roedel are both
limited liability companies whose citizenship, for diversity purposes, is dictated by that of their
members. Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006) (“We
therefore join our sister circuits and hold that, like a partnership, an LLC is a citizen of every state
2
This lawsuit has progressed beyond its infancy and any future requests for amendment of
pleadings must satisfy Rule 16, specifically including concerns regarding diligence, futility, and
prior opportunities to cure pleading deficiencies.
The Court notes, however, that Defendant makes much of Roedel’s supposed failure to
submit a claim (“Why didn’t Roedel file a claim? The Court’s guess is as good as any.”) (Dkt. 46,
p. 5). But at least by April 13, 2023, it appears Roedel in fact had submitted an insurance claim.
(See id.) (identifying “BME Fire” as shorthand for “Your Insureds,” which includes “BME Fire
Trucks LLC, Idaho Employer Resources, Boise Mobile Equipment Inc, 223 Roedel Avenue LLC,
BME Firefighter Supply Inc, and BME Uplifting LLC.”)
Therein, “BME Fire,” which by shorthand included Roedel, sought information on its
“significant covered losses” and “its above-captioned insurance claim.”
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 7
of which its owners/members are citizens.”). Accordingly, Plaintiffs are ordered to submit
information sufficient to establish complete diversity of citizenship among the parties, including
Roedel, within seven days of the date of this order.
IV.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1.
Motion to File Third Amended Complaint (Dkt. 33) is GRANTED. Third Amended
Complaint to be filed by October 29, 2024.
2.
Plaintiffs are ordered to show cause concerning diversity jurisdiction by
October 29, 2024.
October 23, 2024
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 8
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?