Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00035/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00035-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

1

Evoleno’s answer was filed on April 26, 2007, (Doc. 19), and its right to amend as

of right therefore expired on or about May 16, 2007. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The motion

for leave to amend was filed three weeks later, on June 7, 2007.

2

(Doc. 40 at 3). E.g., Florida Evergreen Foliage v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.,

470 F.3d 1036, 1042 (11th Cir. 2006).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

AMERICAN RESOURCES INSURANCE)

COMPANY, INC., )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 07-0035-WS-M

 )

THE EVOLENO COMPANY, LLC, et al.,)

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the motion of defendant The Evoleno Company

(“Evoleno”) for leave to amend its answer. (Doc. 30). Evoleno’s intent is to add three

affirmative defenses: unclean hands, contributory negligence, and an arbitration clause

contained in an agreement with the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed a brief in opposition,

(Doc. 40), Evoleno a reply, (Doc. 42), and the motion is ripe for resolution.

When, as in this case, the time for amendment as of right has passed,1

 “a party may

amend the party’s pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse

party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). 

The plaintiff offers three reasons why leave should not be given in this case, despite what

it admits is the “liberal amendment policy” of Rule 15(a)2

: (1) Evoleno has not offered a

satisfactory excuse for not raising these matters in its original answer; (2) the plaintiff will

be prejudiced if amendment is allowed; and (3) amendment would be futile. The Court

considers these grounds in turn.

Case 1:07-cv-00035-WS-M Document 45 Filed 07/30/07 Page 1 of 4
3

See Muegge v. Heritage Oaks Golf and Country Club, Inc., 209 Fed. Appx. 936,

939-40 (11th Cir. 2006); Caruthers v. BSA Advertising, Inc., 357 F.3d 1213, 1217-18 (11th

Cir. 2004); McGregor v. Autozone, Inc., 180 F.3d 1305, 1308-09 (11th Cir. 1999).

4

The same day the instant motion was filed, the parties filed their report of Rule

26(f) meeting, jointly requesting until August 15, 2007 to make initial disclosures and to

amend the pleadings. (Doc. 33 at 9).

-2-

According to the plaintiff, the Eleventh Circuit precludes a party from amending a

pleading to include material that it could have presented in the initial pleading, and the

amending party bears the burden of showing that it was reasonably unaware of the

material when it filed its initial pleading. (Doc. 40 at 4, 6-7). None of the three cases the

plaintiff cites remotely supports such a proposition. All involved plaintiffs who moved to

amend long after the deadline established by the Rule 16(b) scheduling order expired, and

all considered the plaintiffs’ longstanding awareness of their proposed claims as a

circumstance to be weighed in determining whether they had exhibited the “undue delay”

the Supreme Court recognizes as a legitimate basis for denying leave to amend.

3

 The

plaintiff does not assert that Evoleno exhibited undue delay in moving to amend and — 

given that the motion to amend was filed only three weeks after the expiration of its right

to amend unilaterally, before any formal discovery was propounded or initial disclosures

made, and before a deadline for moving to amend was even established4

 — it could not

successfully do so.

The plaintiff detects prejudice from allowing the amendment only with respect to

arbitration. Its thinking proceeds along these lines: (1) the same day as it filed the instant

motion, Evoleno filed a motion to compel arbitration; (2) the plaintiff opposes the motion

to compel largely on the grounds that Evoleno waived any right to arbitration by

proceeding with this litigation for some time before invoking it; and (3) allowing Evoleno

to amend its answer will in some unexplained way undercut the plaintiff’s waiver

argument. (Doc. 40 at 7). According to the plaintiff, however, the test for waiver is

whether the party invoking arbitration had previously “substantially participate[d] in

Case 1:07-cv-00035-WS-M Document 45 Filed 07/30/07 Page 2 of 4
5

This is a common manner of pleading affirmative defenses in this district, and one

engaged in by plaintiff’s counsel as recently as April of this year. See Harmon v. State

Farm Fire & Casualty Co., Civil Action No. 07-245-BH-B, Doc. 6 at 15 (“Defendant

State Farm pleads the affirmative defense of contributory negligence.”).

6

The single federal case cited by the plaintiff discusses only the proof requirements

for a defense of unclean hands, not the pleading requirements. Calloway v. Partners

National Health Plans, 986 F.2d 446, 451 (11th Cir. 1993). Calloway certainly does not

overrule American Motorists Insurance Co. v. Napoli, 166 F.2d 24 (5th Cir. 1948), which

held that, “[u]nder our very liberal rules of pleading, ... [a] plea that simply states that

complainant was guilty of contributory negligence, as in the case at bar, is sufficient.” Id.

at 26.

-3-

litigation to a point inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate,” with resulting prejudice to the

party opposing arbitration. (Doc. 41 at 3 (internal quotes omitted). Because the motion

to amend the answer and the motion to compel arbitration were filed at the same time, the

assessment of “substantial participation” and prejudice is unaffected by whether the

motion for leave to amend is granted. 

The plaintiff presents two different futility arguments. With respect to arbitration,

it asserts that amendment is futile because Evoleno’s motion to compel arbitration is due

to be denied. (Doc. 40 at 8). The Court is by separate order denying the motion to

compel arbitration. However, there is no point in denying leave to amend unless

Evoleno’s two other new defenses are also futile. 

With respect to unclean hands and contributory negligence, the plaintiff argues that

these affirmative defenses could not withstand a motion to dismiss or strike because the

proposed amended answer merely names the defenses.5

 According to the plaintiff, the

Eleventh Circuit requires a defendant to explicitly allege each element that it will be

required to prove in order to prevail as to that defense. Also according to the plaintiff, the

Supreme Court now requires a defendant to allege facts supporting the invocation of the

affirmative defense. (Doc. 40 at 5-6, 8-9). The plaintiff cites no Eleventh Circuit case

supporting its proposition,6

 nor any case extending Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127

Case 1:07-cv-00035-WS-M Document 45 Filed 07/30/07 Page 3 of 4
7

There is a plausible textual reason why Twombly would be confined to

complaints. Rule 8(a) states that a complaint must include “a short and plain statement of

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis

added). The Twombly Court emphasized that the rule “requires a ‘showing,’ rather than a

blanket assertion, of entitlement to relief,” which “showing” must require “some factual

allegation.” 127 S. Ct. at 1965 n.3. In contrast, Rule 8(b) provides only that the

defendant “state in short and plain terms the party’s defenses,” and Rule 8(c) specifies

only that affirmative defenses be “set forth affirmatively.” Neither requires the answer to

“show” that the defendant is entitled to prevail on his affirmative defense. 

-4-

S.Ct. 1955 (2007), to responsive pleadings.7 Without foreclosing a future motion to

dismiss or strike based on less skeletal argument, the Court easily concludes that the

plaintiff has failed to show that allowing Evoleno’s proposed affirmative defenses would

be futile.

Given the “liberal amendment policy” of Rule 15(a), and the plaintiff’s failure to

support any recognized ground for denying amendment, Evoleno’s motion for leave to

amend its answer is granted. Evoleno is ordered to file and serve its amended answer

on or before August 7, 2007. 

DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of July, 2007.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00035-WS-M Document 45 Filed 07/30/07 Page 4 of 4