Beck Paint & Hardware, Inc. v. The Travelers Indemnity Company

Filing 16

ORDER Granting 15 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint and Denying as Moot 11 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 10/3/17. (gs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
BECK PAINT AND HARDWARE, INC., :
:
Plaintiff,
:
vs.
:
:
THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY
:
COMPANY,
:
:
Defendant.
:

Case No. 1:17-cv-307
Judge Timothy S. Black

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (Doc. 15) and
DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 11)
I.

INTRODUCTION

This civil action is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second
amended complaint. (Doc. 15).
On May 31, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. (Doc. 10). The
Amended Complaint alleges that Plaintiff owns property in Cincinnati (the “Insured
Premises”); Defendant insures the Insured Premises; the Insured Premises incurred water
damage in August, 2016; and Defendant has failed and refused to pay for all of the losses
resulting from the water damage. (Doc. 10 at ¶¶ 1-10). The Amended Complaint asserts
claims for breach of contract and bad faith. (Id. at ¶¶ 12-18).
On June 5, 2017, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for bad
faith. (Doc. 11). Defendant argues Plaintiff’s bad faith claim should be dismissed
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) because the Amended Complaint does not plead a
plausible bad faith claim. (Id. at 4-7).

On July 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to amend. (Doc. 15).
Plaintiff seeks leave for the purpose of attempting to cure the pleading deficiencies
alleged in Defendant’s motion to dismiss. (Id. at ¶ 5). Plaintiff argues Defendant will not
be prejudiced by the amendment as this case is still in its early stages. (Id. at ¶ 6).
Defendant did not oppose Plaintiff’s motion to amend.
II.

STANDARD

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), “leave to amend a pleading shall be freely given
when justice so requires.” Coe v. Bell, 161 F.3d 320, 341 (6th Cir. 1998) (citing Brooks v.
Celeste, 39 F.3d 125, 130 (6th Cir. 1994)). Rule 15(a) embodies “a liberal policy of
permitting amendments to ensure the determinations of claims on their merits.” Marks v.
Shell Oil Co., 830 F.2d 68, 69 (6th Cir. 1987). In deciding a party’s motion for leave to
amend, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has instructed that district courts must
consider several elements, including “[u]ndue delay in filing, lack of notice to the
opposing party, bad faith by the moving party, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by
previous amendments, undue prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of amendments
. . . .” Coe, 161 F.3d at 341. In the absence of any of the aforementioned reasons, leave
should be “freely given.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
Ultimately, determination of whether justice requires the amendment is entrusted
to the sound discretion of a district court. Moore v. City of Paducah, 790 F.2d 557, 559
(6th Cir. 1986).

2

III.

ANALYSIS

The Court agrees that justice requires granting leave for the purpose of allowing
Plaintiff to attempt to correct the alleged pleading deficiencies in the Amended
Complaint. The Supreme Court has explicitly stated that the purpose of pleading is to
facilitate a proper decision on the merits. Foman, 371 U.S. at 182. Along these lines, the
Sixth Circuit has recognized that courts should allow parties the opportunity to attempt to
correct deficiencies in their pleadings as opposed to dismissing a claim entirely. See
Martin v. Insight Communs. Co. LP, No. 2:10-cv-537, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32601, at *
26 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 28, 2011) (“The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
has indicated generally that ‘[i]f it is at all possible that the party against whom the
dismissal is directed can correct the defect in the pleading or state a claim for relief, the
court should dismiss with leave to amend.’”)
Here, Defendant has not opposed Plaintiff’s motion to amend and nothing in the
record suggests granting leave would prejudice Defendant. Under these circumstances,
Plaintiff’s motion for leave is well-taken. See Moore, 790 F.2d at 562 (holding there
must be a showing of prejudice to the opponent to justify denial of a motion for leave to
amend).
Additionally, the Court finds that because the proposed Second Amended
Complaint supersedes the Amended Complaint, Defendant’s pending motion to dismiss
(Doc. 11) is now moot. See Yates v. Applied Performance Techs, Inc., 205 F.R.D. 497,
499 (S.D. Ohio 2002) (“Because amended complaints supersede the original pleading, the

3

filing of the amended complaint in this case did technically render the pending motion to
dismiss moot.”).
IV.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons:
1.

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 15)
is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file the Second Amended Complaint
forthwith; and

2.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 11) is DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date:

10/3/17

Timothy S. Black
United States District Judge

4