Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-02644/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-02644-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Edward Foster,

Plaintiff(s),

 v.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company,

Defendant(s).

 /

NO. C 03-02644 JW 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEEMING

AS MOOT DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

This lawsuit arises out of an insurance coverage dispute between Plaintiff Edward B. Foster

("Plaintiff") and Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company ("Defendant" or "MetLife"),

Plaintiff's life insurer. Presently before this Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File First

Amended Complaint (hereinafter "Plaintiff's Motion," Docket Item No. 46). For the reasons set forth

below, this Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff allegedly purchased life insurance from Defendant and complied with all necessary

conditions of the policy. (Notice of Removal, Docket Item No. 1, Ex. A ¶ 5.) On or about July or

August 2000, Plaintiff claims that Defendant, without notice, cancelled Plaintiff's policy. (Notice of

Removal Ex. A ¶ 6.) "Plaintiff [has] requested proof of mailing of pre-cancellation notice of nonpayment that Met[Life] states it sent, and no such documents have been produced." (Notice of

Case 5:03-cv-02644-JW Document 90 Filed 06/14/05 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

Removal Ex. A ¶ 7.)

Through discovery, Plaintiff allegedly has learned more about the circumstances surrounding

Defendant's cancellation of Plaintiff's policy. (See Plaintiff's Motion at 2:18-20 ("An Amended

Complaint is necessary to better set forth the nature of Plaintiff's position in the dispute, particularly in

light [of] said new documents"); Plaintiff's Motion at 2:20-21 ("The records produced (as well as the

absence of actual notices) support allegations of waiver and/or estoppel").) Plaintiff now seeks to

amend his Complaint to conform it to the newly discovered evidence. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to

amend his Complaint: "1) [t]o provide a better chronology of relevant facts; 2) [t]o incorporate . . .

waiver and estoppel [allegations] into [Plaintiff's] Breach of Contract action; and 3) [t]o add a

Declaratory Relief action . . . ." (Plaintiff's Motion at 2:6-9.)

Plaintiff originally filed his Motion on July 29, 2004. On November 16, 2004, this Court

deemed Plaintiff's Motion as moot, believing that the parties had settled this case. (See Order to

Show Cause Regarding Settlement; Order Deeming All Unresolved Motions as Moot, Docket Item No.

70.) Settlement, however, never materialized because Defendant presented inaccurate information to

Plaintiff during their settlement conference. (See Order Denying Motion to Enforce Settlement; Setting

Hearing Date for Motions, hereinafter "March 17, 2005 Order," Docket Item No. 87, at 2:18-19, 2:22-

25.) As a result, this Court reinstated Plaintiff's Motion. (March 17, 2005 Order at 3:1-4.)

III. STANDARDS

FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a) states that, "[A] party may amend the party's pleading only by leave of

court . . . ; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires." "This policy is to be applied

with 'extreme liberality.'" WILLIAM W. SCHWARZER, A. WALLACE TASHIMA & JAMES M. WAGSTAFFE,

FEDERAL CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL § 8:414 (2004) (citing Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon,

Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003)). The decision to "grant[] or den[y] . . . leave to amend

rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and will be reversed only for abuse of discretion." Id. §

8:413 (citing Swanson v. United States Forest Service, 87 F.3d 339, 343 (9th Cir. 1996)).

IV. DISCUSSION

Case 5:03-cv-02644-JW Document 90 Filed 06/14/05 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

This Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend his Complaint. FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a) instructs courts

to "freely give" parties leave to amend "when justice so requires." "This policy is 'to be applied with

extreme liberality.'" Eminence Capital, LLC, 87 F.3d at 1051 (quoting Owens v. Kaiser Found.

Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 1990)). 

First, and primarily, Defendant argues that this Court should deny Plaintiff's Motion because

Plaintiff's proposed amendments add little, if anything, to his Complaint. According to Defendant,

"Foster's [proposed] declaratory relief claim is . . . unnecessary and duplicative[]" because "all of the

purported controversies raised by Foster's declaratory relief cause of action are already at issue in

this case." (Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion, hereinafter "Defendant's Opposition,"

Docket Item No. 59, at 4:2-5; see also Defendant's Opposition at 3:22-23 ("[Foster's Declaratory

Relief claim raises] . . . the same issues that have already been raised in Foster's original complaint

with respect to the first cause of action for breach of contract").) Furthermore, Defendant argues, "The

same is true for Foster's request to add allegations concerning his claim that MetLife waived and/or

excused certain conditions and is estopped from denying coverage based on lack of payment." 

(Defendant's Opposition at 4:23-25.) In Defendant's words:

In its [sic] original pleading, Foster had already placed MetLife on notice that it is contending

that MetLife breached the insurance contract and that it waived and/or excused certain

conditions. Moreover, specific facts relating to these allegations have been ascertained in

discovery propounded by MetLife. MetLife received sufficient notice of the claims being

brought by Foster so as to prepare for trial. Accordingly, there is no reason why Foster now

needs to add these facts into an amended complaint at this late stage of the case.

(Defendant's Opposition at 4:25-5:4.) 

In this Court's opinion, Defendant's argument actually supports Plaintiff's Motion. If, as

Defendant argues, Plaintiff's proposed amendments add little, if anything, to Plaintiff's current

Complaint, then Defendant will hardly be prejudiced by Plaintiff's proposed amendments. See

SCHWARZER ET AL., supra, § 8:424 ("Prejudice to opposing party: This is by far the most important

and most common reason for denying leave to amend") (citing Eminence Capital, LLC, 316 F.3d at

1052 ("Prejudice is the touchstone of the inquiry under Rule 15(a)")). In fact, Defendant—and this

Court—would be aided by Plaintiff's proposed amendments, which "provide a better chronology of

Case 5:03-cv-02644-JW Document 90 Filed 06/14/05 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 4

the relevant facts" and "better set forth the nature of Plaintiff's position in the dispute . . . ." (Plaintiff's

Motion at 2:6, 2:19-20; compare Notice of Removal Ex. A at 1:1-3:20 with Declaration of John A.

Shepardson Supporting Plaintiff's Motion, Docket Item No. 47, at 3:1-9:14.) Greater factual

specificity will hone issues for trial and aid Defendant in answering Plaintiff's allegations more

directly. 

Second, Defendant argues that this Court should deny Plaintiff's Motion because permitting

Plaintiff to amend his complaint would cause undue delay in the litigation. (Defendant's Opposition at

5:14-6:18.) This Court finds this argument unpersuasive. SCHWARZER ET AL., supra, § 8:427 ("If the

only 'prejudice' to your client consists of expense and possible delay in getting to trial, don't count on

the court denying leave to amend"). 

Finally, Defendant argues that this Court should deny Plaintiff's Motion because Defendant has

a motion for summary judgment currently pending before this Court. (Defendant's Opposition at 6:19-

7:5.) However, the authority upon which Defendant relies states that, "Where plaintiff has had

adequate opportunity for discovery and defendant's motion for summary judgment is pending, leave to

amend may be denied unless plaintiff can produce 'substantial and convincing evidence' supporting the

proposed amendment." (See Defendant's Opposition at 6:21-25 (quoting SCHWARZER ET AL., supra, §

8:420.1) (emphasis added).) Notably, this language is permissive. To reduce any prejudice that

would result to Defendant, this Court will permit Defendant, notwithstanding this Court's Scheduling

Order, to re-file a motion for summary judgment after Plaintiff files his Amended Complaint.

Given that this Court must freely and liberally grant parties leave to amend their pleadings, and

that minimal prejudice will result to Defendant as a result of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, this

Court, in its discretion and out of an abundance of caution, GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion.

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, this Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion. Plaintiff shall

officially file and serve his newly Amended Complaint on or before Monday, June 27, 2005. 

Accordingly, this Court deems as moot Defendant's pending Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket

Case 5:03-cv-02644-JW Document 90 Filed 06/14/05 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 5

Item No. 53) since it is premised upon Plaintiff's original Complaint. However, notwithstanding this

Court's Scheduling Order, Defendant may file and serve another Motion for Summary Judgment on or

before Friday, August 26, 2006—after Plaintiff has filed his newly Amended Complaint. If Defendant

elects to file a new Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant shall notice it for hearing, in ordinary

course, pursuant to the Civil Local Rules.

Dated: June 14, 2005

03cv2644mta

/s/James Ware 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:03-cv-02644-JW Document 90 Filed 06/14/05 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Ellen B. Kamon ekamon@sortlaw.com

John A. Shepardson johnshepardson@hotmail.com

Dated: June 14, 2005 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By:/s/JWchambers 

Ronald L. Davis

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:03-cv-02644-JW Document 90 Filed 06/14/05 Page 6 of 6