Hoffman v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company et al

Filing 83

ORDER granting 80 MOTION for Leave to File Plaintiffs First Superseding and Amending Complaint for Damages. The Clerk's Office shall enter Plaintiff's First Superseding and Amending Complaint for Damages, Penalties, and Attorney's Fees into the record. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 3/15/2022. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JANA HOFFMAN

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 15-309-JWD-RLB

STATE FARM FIRE AND
CASUALTY COMPANY
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave of Court to File Plaintiff’s Superseding
and Amending Complaint for Damages, Penalties, and Attorney’s Fees. (R. Doc. 80). Prior to
filing the Motion, Plaintiff sought, but did not obtain, Defendant’s consent pursuant to Local
Rule 7(e). Nevertheless, Defendant failed to file an opposition within the time required by Local
Rule 7(f). Accordingly, the Motion is unopposed.
On April 22, 2015, Jana Hoffman (“Plaintiff”) filed this action in the 18th Judicial
District Court for the Parish of Iberville, Louisiana against State Farm and Casualty Company
(“State Farm” or “Defendant”) and Cindy M. Ellender (“Ms. Ellender”). (R. Doc. 1-1 at 10-15)
(“Petition”). Plaintiff claimed that on July 3, 2014, her house burned down after she accidentally
left a pot on the stove. (Petition, ¶¶ 3-7). Plaintiff submitted a claim to State Farm under a
homeowner’s policy (“Policy”) and State Farm assigned Ms. Ellender to investigate the claim.
(Petition, ¶ 11-12). State Farm denied the claim but agreed to pay any “innocent” insured,
namely Plaintiff’s mortgage company. (Petition, ¶ 22). Plaintiff alleges that State Farm breached
the Policy in bad faith by refusing to pay benefits in an arbitrary and capricious manner, entitling
the Plaintiff to damages under the Louisiana bad faith statutes. (Petition, ¶1-7).

After removal, the district judge denied with prejudice all claims brought against Ms.
Ellender. (R. Docs. 16, 23). State Farm then filed certain counterclaims. (R. Doc. 33). Prior to
trial, and with consent of the parties, the district judge stayed the action pending the completion
of an active investigation by the office of the Louisiana State Fire Marshal. (R. Doc. 69).
On January 18, 2022, the district judge lifted the stay given the completion of the
investigation by the Louisiana State Fire Marshal. (R. Doc. 75; see R. Docs. 73, 74). The parties
then submitted a Joint Status Report. (R. Doc. 78). A new Scheduling Order has been entered
providing, among other things, that the deadline to amend the pleadings is reset for April 11,
2022. (R. Doc. 82).
On February 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion, which seeks entry of a proposed
pleading “to allege developments relevant to this matter since the filing of [the original Petition]
and to expand the existing allegations based on those developments.” (R. Doc. 80 at 2). As
discussed above, State Farm did not file any opposition to the relief sought.
Under Rule 15(a)(2), after the period for amending as a matter of course elapses, “a party
may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave” and
a “court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The rule
“evinces a bias in favor of granting leave to amend.” Martin's Herend Imports, Inc. v. Diamond
& Gem Trading U.S.A. Co., 195 F.3d 765, 770 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting Dussouy v. Gulf Coast
Inv. Corp., 660 F.2d 594, 597 (5th Cir. 1981)). Although leave to amend should not be
automatically granted, “[a] district court must possess a substantial reason to deny a request for
leave to amend[.]” Jones v. Robinson Prop. Grp., L.P., 427 F.3d 987, 994 (5th Cir. 2005)
(quotations omitted). The Court may consider several factors when determining whether to grant
leave to amend, including “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant,

2

repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the
opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of the amendment. . . .”
See Rhodes v. Amarillo Hosp. Dist., 654 F.2d 1148, 1153 (5th Cir. 1981) (quoting Foman v.
Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)).
Under Rule 15(d), “[o]n motion and reasonable notice, the court may, on just terms,
permit a party to serve a supplemental pleading setting out any transaction, occurrence, or event
that happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d).
Having considered the record, the lack of any opposition, and the applicable law, the
Court will grant Plaintiff leave to file into the record Plaintiff’s First Superseding and Amending
Complaint for Damages, Penalties, and Attorney’s Fees (R. Doc. 80-2). The Court finds no
substantial reason for denying this motion given the new Scheduling Order issued in this action.
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave of Court to File Plaintiff’s
Superseding and Amending Complaint for Damages, Penalties, and Attorney’s Fees. (R. Doc.
80) is GRANTED. The Clerk’s Office shall enter Plaintiff’s First Superseding and Amending
Complaint for Damages, Penalties, and Attorney’s Fees (R. Doc. 80-2) into the record.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on March 15, 2022.

S

RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3