Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04197/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04197-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Insurance Contract

---

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

 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

S.J. AMOROSO CONSTRUCTION CO.,

INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

LIBERTY SURPLUS INSURANCE

CORPORATION and DOES 1 through

50, 

Defendants. /

No. C 09-4197 PJH

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FILE

AN AMENDED ANSWER AND

AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM

The motion of defendant Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation (“LSIC”) for an

order granting leave to amend its answer and counterclaim pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) came on for hearing on June 9, 2010. LSIC appeared by its

counsel Jay Christofferson, and plaintiff S.J. Amoroso Construction Co., Inc. (“SJA”)

appeared by its counsel Jon Brick. Having carefully reviewed the parties’ papers and

considered the arguments of counsel and the relevant legal authority, and good cause

appearing, the court hereby rules as follows for the reasons stated at the hearing and

summarized below. 

DISCUSSION

Courts should “freely give” leave to amend “when justice so requires.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Courts generally examine and weigh four factors to determine whether

it would be inappropriate to grant leave to amend: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to

the opposing party, and futility. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).

There is little indication that any of these factors are present in this case. 

Because this case is still in the early stages of litigation and because the discovery

Case 4:09-cv-04197-PJH Document 36 Filed 06/10/10 Page 1 of 2
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

cutoff date is more than a year away, there has been no undue delay in bringing the

motion and no prejudice will result to SJA if the motion is granted. There is also no

indication of bad faith on the part of LSIC. While SJA argues that the proposed

amendments would be futile because of its defenses of waiver and estoppel, the court

finds that examining the merits of such defenses is better suited for a motion to dismiss

or for summary judgment rather than a motion for leave to amend. Additionally, there

are factual disputes bearing on the viability of these defenses, which require at

minimum, a fully developed evidentiary record. 

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, the motion for leave to amend is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: June 10, 2010 

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:09-cv-04197-PJH Document 36 Filed 06/10/10 Page 2 of 2