State Farm Fire & Casualty Company v. Ireland et al

Filing 24

ORDER denying as moot 17 Motion to Dismiss; granting 20 Motion to Amend Pleadings within 7 days of this order. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 06/22/15. (wh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY
COMPANY,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
KRISTOPHER IRELAND, TONI BEAN, and )
TYLER COPELAND,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. CIV-15-184-D

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff State Farm Fire and Casualty Company’s Motion to
Amend Pleadings [Doc. No. 20]. Defendant Tyler Copeland has filed a timely objection.
He opposes the Motion on the grounds that Plaintiff proposes to amend its pleading to
request a declaratory judgment regarding insurance coverage that it is not in dispute and that
the proposed amendment would not cure deficiencies in Plaintiff’s prior pleadings, as argued
in his pending Motion to Dismiss Both Plaintiff’s Complaint and Amended Complaint [Doc.
No. 17]. In its reply brief, Plaintiff explains the nature of the coverage issues that would be
added by its proposed amendment.
Notwithstanding Defendant’s concerns, the Court finds that the proposed amendment
should be permitted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, which directs courts to “freely give leave [to
amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “The purpose of the Rule is to
provide litigants ‘the maximum opportunity for each claim to be decided on its merits rather
than on procedural niceties.’” Minter v. Prime Equipment Co., 451 F.3d 1196, 1204 (10th

Cir. 2006) (quoting Hardin v. Manitowoc-Forsythe Corp., 691 F.2d 449, 456 (10th Cir.
1982)). Thus, an amendment of pleadings should be permitted unless a sufficient reason
exists to deny leave to amend. See id.; see also Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
“Refusing leave to amend is generally only justified upon a showing of 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.” Bylin v. Billings, 568 F.3d 1224,
1229 (10th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation omitted).
Although Plaintiff’s failure to tender a proposed pleading with its Motion has caused
some uncertainty, the Court accepts Plaintiff’s explanation in its reply brief regarding the
coverage issues it proposes to add by further amendment. Also, Defendant Copeland
concedes that circumstances have changed since Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was filed;
he has amended his pleading in the underlying lawsuit to add claims against Defendant Toni
Bean, the named insured. This amendment and other developments in the underlying
litigation have raised additional and different coverage issues. Under these circumstances,
the Court finds that further amendment of Plaintiff’s pleading to address all disputed issues
should be permitted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Pleadings [Doc.
No. 20] is GRANTED. Plaintiff may filed its proposed Second Amended Complaint within
7 days from the date of this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in light of the amendment authorized by this Order,
Defendant Tyler Copeland’s Motion to Dismiss Both Plaintiff’s Complaint and Amended
2

Complaint for Declaratory Judgment [Doc. No. 17] is moot and, therefore, DENIED. The
denial is without prejudice to the filing of a new motion, if appropriate, directed at Plaintiff’s
amended pleading.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of June, 2015.

3