Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02086/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02086-6/pdf.json

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KINSALE INSURANCE COMPANY, an 

Arkansas corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

SKY HIGH SPORTS, LLC, a California 

and Nevada Limited liability Company, 

et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-02086-MCE-KJN

ORDER

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for leave to file an 

Amended and Supplemental Complaint in this matter pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure 15(a)(2) and 15(d).1 The Motion also requests that the court issue a revised 

Pretrial Scheduling Order pursuant to Rule 16. Plaintiff’s Motion is made on grounds 

that once the Court granted summary judgment compelling a premium audit pursuant to 

the insurance policies at issue in this litigation, new and related contractual disputes 

have arisen among the parties regarding amounts owed to Plaintiff for the insurance 

coverage it provided. Consequently, the parties have agreed that a supplemental 

 1 All further references to “Rule” or “Rules” are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless 

otherwise noted.

Case 2:14-cv-02086-MCE-DB Document 34 Filed 05/16/16 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

complaint is proper based on these new disputes. Moreover, since the parties also 

concur that new and additional discovery is needed in order to explore the new issues 

raised within that complaint, Plaintiff’s Motion asks the Court to revise its Pretrial 

Scheduling Order in order to permit such discovery. 

Rule 15(a) provides that leave to amend a pleading “shall be freely given when 

justice so requires,” and both the parties’ agreement as well as the circumstances of this 

matter indicate that the complaint should be amended in this matter.

With regard to the need to revise the Pretrial Scheduling Order, since Plaintiff’s 

Motion was filed, that has become a moot point given the reassignment of this case to 

the undersigned on November 6, 2015, and this Court’s subsequent issuance of its own 

Pretrial Scheduling Order on March 7, 2016 (ECF No. 32). The extended dates and 

deadlines set forth in the now operative Pretrial Scheduling Order should be more than 

ample to accommodate the additional discovery contemplated by the parties.

In sum, then, Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (ECF 

No. 28) is GRANTED, except that the request made therein for a revision of the 

operative Pretrial Scheduling Order is DENIED as moot. 2 Plaintiff is directed to file its 

Proposed First Amended and Supplemental Complaint not later than ten (10) days after 

the date this Order is electronically filed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 12, 2016

 2 Because oral argument was not of material assistance, the Court ordered this matter submitted 

on the briefs. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(g).

Case 2:14-cv-02086-MCE-DB Document 34 Filed 05/16/16 Page 2 of 2