Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00312/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00312-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

SOVEREIGN GENERAL INSURANCE

SERVICES, INC., a California

corporation,

No. 2:05-cv-0312-MCE-DAD

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY,

an Ohio corporation, NATIONAL

CASUALTY COMPANY, a Wisconsin

corporation, SCOTTSDALE

INDEMNITY COMPANY, an Ohio

corporation, WESTERN HERITAGE

INSURANCE COMPANY, an Arizona

corporation, R. MAX

WILLIAMSON, an individual,

JOSEPH A. LUGHES, an

individual, and DOES 1 through

100, inclusive,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

----oo0oo----

By Order dated November 1, 2005, this Court consolidated the

above-referenced matter with Western Heritage Ins. Co. v.

Case 2:05-cv-00312-MCE -DAD Document 33 Filed 01/11/06 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

All further references to “Rule” or “Rules” are to the 1

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless otherwise noted.

2

Sovereign General Ins. Serv., Case No. 2:05-cv-1389-MCE-DAD.

(“Western Heritage”). The above-referenced matter, which will be

referred to as “Sovereign General”, was denominated as lead case. 

 The Sovereign General Defendants have moved to strike,

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), the 1

Counterclaim filed in the Western Heritage case as duplicative

and redundant of the claims already asserted in the Sovereign

General case-in-chief. The Sovereign General Defendants further

assert that any additional claims sounding in fraud fail to state

a claim upon which relief can be granted and should be dismissed

in accordance with Rule 12(b)(6).

The proponents of the Western Heritage Counterclaim have, in

response to this Motion, filed an Amended Counterclaim to address

the argument that its fraud claims were not pled with

specificity. Opposition to that portion of the Motion to Dismiss

made in accordance with Rule 12(f) was also filed, and in reply

the Sovereign General Defendants argue that the amended pleading

is still insufficient. They concede, however, that the filing of

the Amended Counterclaim may moot the Motion to Dismiss directed

to the original Counterclaim, despite the fact that the

redundancy argument remains unchanged with respect to both the

initial counterclaim and its successor.

The Western Heritage Counterclaim may indeed be amended once

as a matter of course before a responsive pleading is served. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a); see Allwaste, Inc. v. Hecht, 65 F.3d 1523,

1530 (9 Cir. 1995). Because motions under Rule 12(b) are not th

Case 2:05-cv-00312-MCE -DAD Document 33 Filed 01/11/06 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

Because oral argument would not be of material assistance, 2

this matter was deemed suitable for decision without oral

argument. E.D. Local Rule 78-230(h).

3

considered responsive pleadings, the filing of this Motion to

Dismiss does not prevent amendment of the Counterclaim prior to

hearing said motion. Crum v. Circus Circus Enterprises, 231 F.3d

1129, 1130 n. 3 (9 Cir. 2000). Because the filing of the th

Amended Counterclaim voids its predecessor, the Motion to Dismiss

directed to the original Counterclaim is necessarily moot, and

the motion is DENIED on that basis. Despite their apparent 2

attempt to do so, the Sovereign General Defendants cannot

challenge the allegations made in the Amended Counterclaim by way

of reply in support of their motion directed to the original

pleading. Any further challenge must be made by way of a newly

filed motion in response to the Amended Counterclaim. In

addition, although the Sovereign General Defendants argue that

both versions of the counterclaim are equally duplicative and/or

redundant, as stated above the original counterclaim has been

superseded and any continuing challenge to the Amended

Counterclaim is not properly before the Court at this juncture.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 10, 2006

___________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00312-MCE -DAD Document 33 Filed 01/11/06 Page 3 of 3