Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02182/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02182-0/pdf.json

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

M. Diane Koken, Insurance Commissioner

of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

acting in her official capacity as Statutory

Liquidator of Legion Insurance Company

and Villanova Insurance Company, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Milne Scali & Company; Milne Scali &

Company-East Valley LLC; BNC

Insurance Services, Inc., 

Defendants. _________________________________

Milne Scali & Company

Counter-claimant

vs.

M. Diane Koken, Insurance Commissioner

of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

acting in her official capacity as Statutory

Liquidator of Legion Insurance Company

and Villanova Insurance Company

Counter-Defendant

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-2182-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently, before the Court is Plaintiff M. Dianne Koken's ("Plaintiff") Motion for

Leave to File Supplemental Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Her Motion

Case 2:05-cv-02182-MHM Document 52 Filed 06/15/06 Page 1 of 3
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 -

to Dismiss Defendants' Counterclaim. (Dkt.#39). After reviewing the pleadings, the Court

issues the following Order.

I. Background

Plaintiff moves this Court for leave to file a supplemental reply in support of

Plaintiff's pending Motion to dismiss Defendant/Counter-claimants Milne Scali & Company,

Milne Scali & Company-East Valley LLC and BNC Insurance Services, Inc.'s (collectively

"Milne Scali" or "Defendants") counterclaim. (Dkt.#13). Plaintiff's basis for filing the

supplemental reply is that a recent decision from the Eastern District of Virginia, CV05-

00858, is relevant and favors the Plaintiff's position regarding her pending motion. 

Defendants object to the supplemental pleading and in the alternative requests that they be

granted permission to file a response. 

II. Analysis

Rule 15(d), Fed.R.Civ.Pro. provides in pertinent part: 

Upon motion of a party the court may, upon reasonable notice and upon such

terms as are just, permit the party to serve a supplemental pleading setting

forth transactions or occurrences or events which have happened since the date

of the pleading sought to be supplemented. Permission may be granted even

though the original pleading is defective in its statement of a claim for relief

or defense. If the court deems it advisable that the adverse party plead to the

supplemental pleading, it shall so order, specifying the time therefor.

Here, Plaintiff seeks the Court to permit the supplemental pleading based upon an

occurrence subsequent to her Reply brief in support of her Motion to dismiss Plaintiff's

counterclaim filed on December 14, 2005. (Dkt.#24). Specifically, a ruling from another

district court that allegedly addressed a nearly identical issue before this Court. 

Defendants object on several bases in opposing Plaintiff's Motion for leave.

Specifically, Defendants argue that Plaintiff should have not attached her supplemental reply

to her Motion for leave and that because the order from the Virginia District Court is an

unpublished decision Plaintiff cannot cite to it. However, both of these arguments are not

persuasive. First, allowance or denial of leave to file a supplemental pleading is addressed

to the sound discretion of the district court. Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467, 475 (9th Cir. 1988)

(noting that permitting supplemental pleadings is within discretion of trial court and Rule

Case 2:05-cv-02182-MHM Document 52 Filed 06/15/06 Page 2 of 3
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 -

15(d) is liberally construed absent a showing of prejudice to the other party). Here,

Defendants point to no prejudice as a result of Plaintiff's supplemental pleading, especially

in light of the fact that Defendants will be permitted to file a supplemental response. Second,

the fact that the District of Virginia ruling upon which Plaintiff relies is an unpublished

opinion does not somehow preclude the Court from referring to it. Defendants citation to

Ninth Circuit Local Rule 36-3, which prohibits citation to unpublished Ninth Circuit opinions

is not persuasive as that Rule does not address opinions from other courts. See Herring v.

Teradyne, Inc., 256 F. Supp.2d 1118 (S.D. Cal. 2002) (noting that Ninth Circuit rule

governing citation of unpublished decisions does not bar district court from considering

unpublished decisions of other federal district courts for persuasive authority). 

Thus, because there is no resulting prejudice by consideration of Plaintiff's

supplemental reply and the Court is permitted to consider it, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to

File a Supplemental Reply is granted. Moreover, in the interest of fairness, Defendants will

be permitted to file a supplemental response to Plaintiff's supplemental reply. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File

Supplemental Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Her Motion to Dismiss

Defendants' Counterclaim. (Dkt.#39).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants are granted leave to file a

supplemental response to Plaintiff's supplemental reply no later than June 28, 2006. 

DATED this 13th day of June, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-02182-MHM Document 52 Filed 06/15/06 Page 3 of 3