Akers et al v. Minnesota Life Insurance Company

Filing 139

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting defendant Alpha Natural Resources, LLC's 130 MOTION for leave to file a second amended cross-claim against defendant Minnesota Life Insurance Co.; the Clerk is directed to file the attachment to Alpha 's motion as its second amended cross-claim in this matter; Minnesota Life to answer or otherwise respond to the second amended cross-claim within 20 days of the entry of this order. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 6/3/2014. (cc: attys; any unrepresented parties) (taq)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT CHARLESTON
JUDY AKERS and
ESTATE OF WALTER AKERS,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Civil Action No. 2:12-0667

MINNESOTA LIFE INSURANCE CO.,
ALPHA NATURAL RESOURCES, LLC,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending is a motion by defendant Alpha Natural Resources,
LLC (“Alpha”) to amend its Amended Cross-Claim against defendant
Minnesota Life Insurance Co. (“Minnesota Life”), filed May 5, 2014.

Alpha seeks to add one claim under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461, against
Minnesota Life: that Minnesota Life breached “its legal duties and
obligations under” ERISA.

According to the proposed amendment,

Minnesota Life did so by refusing -- and continuing to refuse -- to
pay life insurance benefits allegedly due to the Estate of Walter
Akers.

Alpha also claims that Minnesota Life breached obligations

under ERISA by abusing its discretion in refusing to make those
payments and by failing to pay those benefits after the issuance of
this court’s March 31 Memorandum Opinion and Order in this case, a
decision that Alpha asserts directed Minnesota Life to pay the
benefits.

1

Minnesota Life has not filed opposition to Alpha’s motion.
Moreover, Alpha indicated in its motion that Minnesota Life does not
object to the motion, but that Minnesota Life requests 28 days to
file responsive pleadings to the second amended cross-claim.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), the “court
should freely give leave [to amend a pleading] when justice so
requires.”

Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a).

“The law is well settled ‘that

leave to amend a pleading should be denied only when the amendment
would be prejudicial to the opposing party, there has been bad faith
on the part of the moving party, or the amendment would be futile.’”
Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 242 (4th Cir.
1999)(quoting Johnson v. Oroweat Foods Co., 785 F.2d 504, 509 (4th
Cir. 1986)).

There is no suggestion that the amendment would be

unfairly prejudicial to Minnesota Life or that it has been presented
in bad faith.

Nor has it been shown to be futile.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Alpha’s motion seeking
leave to file a second amended cross-claim, filed May 5, 2014, be,
and it hereby is, granted.

The Clerk is directed to file today the

attachment to Alpha’s motion as its second amended cross-claim in
this matter.

It is further ORDERED that Minnesota Life shall answer

or otherwise respond to the second amended cross-claim within 20 days
of the entry of this order.

2

The Clerk is further directed to transmit copies of this
order to all counsel of record and any unrepresented parties.

DATE: June 3, 2014

John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
United States District Judge

3