Siltronic Corporation v. Employers Insurance Company of Wausau et al
ORDER by Judge Anna J. Brown signed on 6/23/17. The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge You's Findings and Recommendation (# 321 ) and, therefore, GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion (# 310 ) for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint to the extent that Plaintiff is allowed to make amendments regarding the EPA'sJanuary 2017 PHSS ROD, the February 2017 Yakima Nation Action, and updated cost figures. The Court, however, DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to allow Plaintiff to add new defendants at this stage of this 2011 action. See order for details. (jy)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
a Delaware corporation,
EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY
OF WAUSAU, a Wisconsin
corporation, and GRANITE
STATE INSURANCE COMPANY,
a Pennsylvania corporation,
Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued Findings and
Recommendation (F&R) (#321) on May 9, 2017, in which she
recommends the Court grant in part Plaintiff’s Motion (#310) for
Leave to File Second Amended Complaint to the extent that the
Court should allow Plaintiff to make amendments regarding the
EPA’s January 2017 PHSS ROD, the February 2017 Yakima Nation
Action, and updated cost figures and deny in part to the extent
that the Court should not allow Plaintiff to add new defendants.
1 - ORDER
Plaintiff Siltronic Corporation filed timely Objections to
the Findings and Recommendation.
The matter is now before this
Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil
When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate
Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make
a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
See also Dawson v. Marshall, 561
F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328
F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc).
Plaintiff filed this action in 2011 against its insurance
carriers1 for declaratory judgment and breach of contract to
determine and to allocate financial responsibility pursuant to
the insurance policies issued by the carriers for environmental
clean-up claims arising out of the Portland Harbor Superfund Site
Plaintiff now seeks to file a Second Amended Complaint to
add new allegations related to liability for the underlying
environmental claims, to update cost figures, and to rejoin as
defendants Century Indemnity Company and Fireman’s Fund Insurance
Plaintiff initially named several insurance companies.
Only the Defendants named in the caption, however, currently
remain in this case.
2 - ORDER
Company who were previously named as parties but were dismissed
by Plaintiff over two years ago and to add as defendants Munich
Reinsurance America, Inc., and AIU Insurance Company who were
additional excess insurers of Plaintiff.
Defendants Employers Insurance Company of Wausau and Granite
State Insurance Company do not object to Plaintiff’s requests to
add additional allegations or to update cost figures.
Granite object, however, to the addition of any new defendants,
including Century and Fireman’s Fund.
The parties rely on the arguments made before the Magistrate
Judge regarding the Motion for Leave to Amend.
In addition, Plaintiff contends the Magistrate Judge did not
(1) address the fact that Plaintiff’s earlier dismissal of
Century and Fireman’s Fund was without prejudice; (2) did not
reconcile the inconsistency between finding that Plaintiff unduly
delayed bringing its claims against Century and Fireman’s Fund
and Granite’s contention that the claims were not ripe and,
therefore, futile; and (3) did not address judicial economy,
unfairness to the policyholder, or the risk of inconsistent
determinations if Plaintiff is required to file a separate
Plaintiff is correct that the Magistrate Judge did not
3 - ORDER
specifically address the fact that Plaintiff’s prior dismissal of
Century and Fireman’s Fund was without prejudice.
fact that Century and Fireman’s Fund were dismissed without
prejudice preserves Plaintiff’s ability to pursue claims against
them, it does not require them to be joined again in this
In the exercise of her discretion
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, the Magistrate
Judge concluded that to grant Plaintiff’s request to add new
defendants (including Century and Fireman’s Fund) at this stage
would unduly delay proceedings in this case filed in 2011 and
would prejudice the named Defendants.
Based on these
determinations of the Magistrate Judge, this Court concludes the
issues of ripeness and justiciability are moot.
See McCoy v. Bd.
of Educ., Columbus City Schools, No. 2:10-CV-298, 2011 WL
4688563, at *3 (S.D. Ohio, Oct. 4, 2011), aff'd 515 F. App’x 387
(6th Cir. 2013)(the argument that a plaintiff could bring a
separate action and then move for consolidation does not
necessarily weigh in favor of permitting amendment; the court
must weigh the interests of judicial economy against the
potential for delay and prejudice when considering a request for
In addition, this Court has carefully considered Plaintiff’s
Objections and concludes they do not provide a basis to modify
4 - ORDER
The Court also has reviewed the pertinent portions of
the record de novo and does not find any error in the Magistrate
Judge's Findings and Recommendation.
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge You’s Findings and
Recommendation (#321) and, therefore, GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion
(#310) for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint to the extent
that Plaintiff is allowed to make amendments regarding the EPA’s
January 2017 PHSS ROD, the February 2017 Yakima Nation Action,
and updated cost figures.
The Court, however, DENIES Plaintiff’s
Motion to allow Plaintiff to add new defendants at this stage of
this 2011 action.
The Court returns this matter to the Magistrate Judge to set
a deadline for the filing of the Second Amended Complaint and
any other necessary deadlines.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 23rd day of June, 2017.
/s/ Anna J. Brown
ANNA J. BROWN
United States District Judge
5 - ORDER
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?