State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Hartman et al

Filing 97

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 30 Motion for Leave to File First Amended Answer. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale on 3/6/2013. (df)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY
COMPANY,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
C.M., a minor, by and through her natural )
guardian and next friend, BRANLYN
)
FINNELL, DALLAS N. HARTMAN,
)
CHARLES C. CONNOR III, JARED M.
)
WILKINSON and THE PANTRY, INC.,
)
)
Defendants/Cross-Claim Defendants, )
)
and
)
)
KENNETH M. KEEN,
)
)
Third-Party Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )

Case No. 12-2456-KHV-KGG

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Currently before the Court is the Motion for Leave to File First Amended
Answer filed by Third-Party Defendant Kenneth Keen (hereinafter “Keen”). (Doc.
30.) Having reviewed the submissions of the parties, in addition to various other
relevant filings in this case, the Court GRANTS Keen’s motion.

Federal Rule 15(a) provides, in pertinent part, that if a party does not amend
its pleading within 21 days after service, an amendment may occur “only with the
opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” In the absence of any
apparent or declared reason, such as undue delay, undue prejudice to the opposing
party, bad faith or dilatory motive, failure to cure deficiencies by amendments
previously allowed, or futility of amendment, leave to amend should be freely
given, as required by the federal rule. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83
S.Ct. 227, 230, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962); Frank v. U.S. West, Inc., 3 F.3d 1357, 1365
(10th Cir. 1993).
Bell argues that the motion should be denied because she “relied on Keen’s
admission to formulate her strategy both in the instant case and concerning her
presently pending in Johnson County, Kansas case.” (Doc. 32, at 2.) She also
argues that because Keen had “full knowledge of the facts and is represented by
counsel,” he “should not have the luxury of such a radical departure from the initial
fact-based pleading.” (Id.)
Keen merely contends that in his original Answer, he “mistakenly admitted
[Third-Party Plaintiff] Bell’s claim that supplemental jurisdiction over the personal
injury action was proper” – a mistake he hopes to correct with the proposed

2

amendment. (Doc. 30, at 3.) Bell argues that “[t]here is no excuse for Keen’s
‘mistake’ . . . , so denial of the Motion is warranted.” (Doc. 32, at 2.)
“Mistake” is defined as “a wrong action or statement proceeding from faulty
judgment, inadequate knowledge, or inattention: an unintentional error.”
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1446 (1986). The Court is,
therefore, not persuaded by Bell’s argument that there is “no excuse” for Keen’s
mistake as there often is not a reason or “excuse” for an “unintentional error.”
The Court finds no undue prejudice to Bell by the proposed amendment.
The Court is aware that Keen intends to file a motion to dismiss if this motion to
amend is granted. (See Doc. 32, at 3; Doc. 38, at 5.) While this procedural
development obviously does not benefit Plaintiff, this does not equate to “undue
prejudice” if the motion has legally valid basis (regardless of whether it is
ultimately granted by the District Court).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File First
Amended Answer filed by Third-Party Defendant Keen (Doc. 30.) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Wichita, Kansas, on this 6th day of March, 2013.
S/ KENNETH G. GALE

Kenneth G. Gale
United States Magistrate Judge
3