GERMINARO et al v. LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION et al

Filing 83

MEMORANDUM ORDER indicating that upon consideration of Defendants Fidelity National Title Insurance Company and Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Corporation's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Second Amended Complaint 75 ], Brief in Support 77 , Plaintiffs' Brief in Opposition 79 , and Defendants' Reply Brief, (Docket No. 81 ), it is hereby ordered that Defendants' Motion is granted (details more fully stated in said Order); Defendants' Amended Answer shall be filed on or before 5/8/15 at 5:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 4/30/15. (jg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOSEPH J. GERMINARO, an
individual, and GABRIELLA P.
GERMINARO, an individual,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
v.
FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE
COMPANY and COMMONWEALTH LAND
TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION, a
Nebraska corporation, and DOES 1 through
100,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 14-1202
Judge Nora Barry Fischer

MEMORANDUM ORDER
AND NOW, this 30th day of April, 2015, upon consideration of Defendants Fidelity
National Title Insurance Company and Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Corporation’s
Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Second Amended
Complaint, (Docket No. [75]), Brief in Support, (Docket No. [77]), Plaintiffs’ Brief in
Opposition, (Docket No. [79]), and Defendants’ Reply Brief, (Docket No. [81]),
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), leave to amend the pleadings should be
“freely granted when justice so requires.” FED.R.CIV.P. 15(a)(2). “[M]otions to amend pleadings
should be liberally granted,” Long v. Wilson, 393 F.3d 390, 400 (3d Cir. 2004), and “[l]eave to
amend must generally be granted unless equitable considerations render it otherwise unjust.”
Arthur v. Maersk, Inc., 434 F.3d 196, 204 (3d Cir. 2006) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178,
182 (1962)). “Among the factors that may justify denial of leave to amend are undue delay, bad
1

faith, and futility.” Arthur, 434 F.3d at 204; see also Foman, 371 U.S. at 182 (“In the absence of
any apparent or declared reason—such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of
the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue
prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment,
etc.—the leave sought should, as the rules require, be ‘freely given’”).
Plaintiffs argue that Defendants’ proposed amendments are disingenuous and futile, but
do not set forth any support for these conclusory allegations. (Docket No. 79 at 1). In response,
Defendants maintain that the proposed additional defenses are the result of further analysis and
factual development and the Motion was filed within the deadline. (Docket No. 77 at 5). The
Court agrees. Accordingly, Defendants may amend to conform to the evidence pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(b)(2). FED.R.CIV.P. 15(a)(2) (“A party may move—at any
time, even after judgment—to amend the pleadings to conform them to the evidence. . .”); see
also ScanSource, Inc. v. Datavision–Prologix, Inc., 2009 WL 973497 (E.D. Pa. Apr.8, 2009)
(amendment allowed to conform to evidence produce by defendant in discovery in aid of
execution).
Further, as Defendants point out, (Docket No. 81 at 2), Plaintiffs have not alleged that
amendment will prejudice or burden them. To that end, in the Third Circuit, prejudice to the nonmoving party is the touchstone for denial of leave to amend. Lorenz v. CSX Corp., 1 F.3d 1406,
1414 (3d Cir. 1993). “Unless the opposing party will be prejudiced, leave to amend should
generally be allowed.” Charpentier v. Godsil, 937 F.2d 859, 864 (3d Cir. 1991). Here, the
Motion to Amend was timely brought consistent with the Court’s Case Management Order,
(Docket No. 62), and discovery is in its early stages, given fact discovery concludes on October
28, 2015. (Id.).

2

In light of the above and the procedural posture of this case, this Court does not find that
Plaintiffs will be prejudiced by granting Defendants leave to amend as set forth herein.
Defendants’ Amended Answer shall be filed on or before May 8, 2015 at 5:00 p.m.
s/ Nora Barry Fischer
Nora Barry Fischer
United States District Judge
cc/ecf: All counsel of record.

3