Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London Subscribing to Certificate No. LCL 004029 v. Plaza Banquet Centers, Inc. et al

Filing 52

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER... IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' motion for a hearing on Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a first amended complaint is DENIED . (Doc. No. 51 .) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaint iff's motion for leave to file a first amended complaint is GRANTED. (Doc. No. 35 .) IT IS FUTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall separate the proposed amended complaint that is attached as an exhibit to Plaintiff's motion and docket it as Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 10/22/2014. (NEB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

CERTAIN UNDERWRITERTS AT
)
LLOYD’S LONDON, SUBSCRIBING TO )
CERTIFICATE NO. 004029,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
PLAZA BANQUEUT CENTERS, INC.,
)
d/b/a LIGHTS ON BROADWAY, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. 4:14CV00936 AGF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This action is for a declaratory judgment with respect to the rights and obligations of
the parties pursuant to a commercial general liability policy issued by Plaintiff. The
matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended
complaint. The original complaint was filed on May 16, 2014, and asserted one policy
exclusion as a basis for denying defense and indemnity coverage. The proposed amended
complaint adds several other grounds for Plaintiff’s denial of benefits under the policy.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), courts should grant leave to
amend a pleading “freely . . . when justice so requires.” The Court believes that here,
Plaintiff should be permitted to amend its complaint as proposed. No undue delay will
result, and the Court discerns no undue prejudice to Defendants. A Case Management
Order has just been issued in the case. The legal validity of Plaintiff’s proposed new
claims can best be tested by means of a fully briefed motion to dismiss and/or motion for

summary judgment. The Court has reviewed Defendants’ motion for a hearing on
Plaintiff’s motion for leave and does not believe that a hearing is necessary or would be
helpful to the Court’s determination.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for a hearing on Plaintiff’s
motion for leave to file a first amended complaint is DENIED. (Doc. No. 51.)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first
amended complaint is GRANTED. (Doc. No. 35.)
IT IS FUTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall separate the proposed
amended complaint that is attached as an exhibit to Plaintiff’s motion and docket it as
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.

________________________________
AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 22nd day of October, 2014.

2