Buy This Entire Record For
Catlin Syndicated Limited v. Ramuji, LLC
United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Middle Division
April 18, 2018
CATLIN SYNDICATE LIMITED, Plaintiff,
RAMUJI, LLC d/b/a BUDGET INN and PEOPLES INDEPENDENT BANK, Defendants. RAMUJI, LLC, PEOPLE'S INDEPENDENT BANK, Counterclaim/Third Party Plaintiffs, GREAT AMERICAN ASSURANCE COMPANY Third-Party Plaintiff Intervenor,
RANDY JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC., JON PAIR, CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, LONDON SUBSCRIBING SEVERALLY TO POLICY NO. ULL 20018, named as “SYNDICATE 1414 AT LLOYD'S ASCOT UNDERWRITING LIMITED, SYNDICATE 5820 AT LLOYD'S ANV SYNDICATES LIMITED, SYNDICATE 727 AT LLOYD'S S.A. MEACOCH & COMPANY LIMITED, and SYNDICATE 1861 at LLOYD's ANV SYNDICATED LIMITED, Third-Party Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Introduction and Relevant Background
the Court is Catlin Syndicate Limited's
(“Catlin”) Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint
(the “Motion”) under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 15(a)(2) filed on March 29, 2018. (Doc. 139). In
its Motion, Catlin asks the Court to “allow Catlin to
file a Second Amended Complaint.” (Id. at 9).
Catlin attached the Second Amended Complaint to the Motion.
(Doc. 139-1). According to Catlin, “[t]he purpose of
the requested amendment is to add another example of . . . a
misrepresentation in Ramuji's completed application which
was recently discovered.” (Doc. 139 at 3).
Motion notes that Ramuji opposes this amendment. (See
id.) (“Counsel for Ramuji opposes any amendment
that changes or adds any newly asserted grounds that
Underwriters wish to add to their efforts to void the
Policy.”). The Motion is silent regarding whether
People's Independent Bank (“PIB”) opposes the
Motion. (See generally id.). Importantly, under this
Court's Uniform Initial Order, any opposition to the
Motion had to be filed within 14 days. (Doc. 3 at 23
¶2). The time to oppose the Motion has passed.
Accordingly, it is now ripe for review.
(a) Amendments Before Trial.
(1) Amending as a Matter of Course.
A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course
(A) 21 days after serving it, or
(B) if the pleading is one to which a
responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a
responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion
under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.
(2) Other Amendments. In all other
cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing
party's written consent or the court's leave. The
court should freely give leave when justice so requires.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The Eleventh Circuit has explained
The thrust of Rule 15(a) is to allow parties to have their
claims heard on the merits, and accordingly, district courts
should liberally grant leave to amend when “the
underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff
may be a proper subject of relief.” Foman v.
Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 230, 9 L.Ed.2d
222 (1962). Nevertheless, a motion for leave to amend may
appropriately be denied “(1) where there has been undue
delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, or repeated failure to
cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed; (2) where
allowing amendment would cause undue prejudice to the
opposing party; or (3) where amendment would be
futile.” Bryant v. Dupree, 252 F.3d 1161, 1163
In re Engle Cases, 767 F.3d 1082, 1108-09 (11th Cir.
2014). “[The Eleventh Circuit] review[s] for abuse of
discretion.” See Bryant v. Dupree, 252 F.3d
1161, 1163 (11th Cir. 2001) (citing Henson v. Columbus
Bank & Trust ...