Peerbhai et al v. PC Processing, Inc. et al
ORDER granting 20 Motion for Leave to File.(Signed by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos) Parties notified.(lcayce, 2)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
REHMAT PEERBHAI, et al,
PC PROCESSING, INC., et al,
January 23, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-365
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE
Plaintiffs filed this action in the 229th Judicial District Court of Duval County,
Texas, against four Defendants: PC Processing, Inc. (PCPI); Cen Cal Insurance Services,
LLC; CenCal Holdings, LLC; and Lindsay General Insurance Agency, LLC (Lindsay).
D.E. 1-3. After Plaintiffs dismissed their claims against Lindsay, the only non-diverse
defendant, Defendants removed the case to this Court. D.E. 1. On November 17, 2016,
this Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for remand and ordered Plaintiffs to amend their
complaint to conform to federal pleading rules. See D.E. 6.
By motion filed on December 19, 2016, Plaintiffs now seek to amend their
pleading, not only to conform to federal rules, but to join as a necessary party Defendant
Alex J. Campos (Campos) and to add a legal theory for recovery. D.E. 20. Plaintiffs are
within the deadline for amending pleadings and joining parties. D.E. 18. And motions to
amend are freely granted in the interests of justice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Plaintiffs
allege that Campos is a principal of current Defendants PCPI and CenCal Holdings and
was personally involved in the transactions giving rise to this action. The claims against
him are based on fraud and negligent misrepresentation.
Defendants oppose the motion for leave on the basis that the new claims against
Campos are untimely, made in bad faith, and the negligent misrepresentation claim is
barred by limitations. While Plaintiffs could have pled their claims against Campos when
they originally filed this action, the Court notes that this case has not yet been developed
in discovery and significant deadlines have not passed.
While Defendants claim
prejudice, they have not demonstrated what prejudice adding Campos will cause. And
their claim of bad faith is unsupported.
It is undisputed that negligent misrepresentation claims are subject to a two-year
limitations bar.1 According to their proposed amended complaint, Plaintiffs claim that
Campos made negligent misrepresentations throughout the relationship of the parties,
ending with the transfer of CenCal Insurance Services, LLC to Plaintiff, CenCal
Insurance Services Inc.
D.E. 20-2, ¶ 49.
This transaction occurred on or about
November 10, 2014. D.E. 20-3, ¶ 8. Plaintiffs further complain that they did not learn
that the transaction was not as represented until December 2014, and into the early part of
2015. D.E. 27, p. 6. They plead the discovery rule. Id.
Given that the fraud2 claims have not been challenged, the Court determines that it
is in the interest of justice to permit the amended complaint, including the negligent
See generally, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.003(a); Texas American Corp. v. Woodbridge Joint Venture, 809
S.W.2d 299, 302 (Tex. Civ. App.–Fort Worth 1991, writ denied).
Fraud claims carry a four-year limitations period. See generally, Kansa Reinsurance Co. v. Cong. Mortg. Corp.
of Texas, 20 F.3d 1362, 1369 (5th Cir. 1994) (citing Williams v. Khalaf, 802 S.W.2d 651, 656–58 (Tex. 1990) and
Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 16.004(a)(3) (Vernon 1986)).
Rather than adjudicate the negligent misrepresentation
limitations issue as a preliminary matter, the Court will permit discovery and dispositive
motions in the ordinary course of the pre-trial schedule.
For these reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion for leave (D.E. 20) and instructs
the Clerk to file the amended complaint (D.E. 20-2) as an independent document on the
docket of this case.
ORDERED this 23rd day of January, 2017.
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?