Trisura Insurance Company v. Bighorn Construction and Reclamation, LLC

Background

Trisura Insurance Company filed an amended complaint on January 10, 2024. The defendants answered on March 20, 2024. On or about September 17, 2024, almost six months after filing their answer, the defendants filed counterclaims against Trisura.

Trisura then requested a briefing schedule for a motion to deny, dismiss, or strike the counterclaims. After the parties briefed the issue, the court construed the dispute as a request by the defendants for permission to amend their answer rather than as a dismissal motion.

Rule 15 and Consent

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 generally allows a party to amend a pleading without permission during specified time periods. The court found that the defendants’ period for amending their answer as a matter of course ended on April 10, 2024. Because the defendants filed their amended answer in September 2024, they needed either Trisura’s consent or the court’s permission.

The defendants argued that the parties’ proposed case-management plan showed Trisura’s consent because the parties answered “Yes” to whether amendments to pleadings were anticipated. Trisura argued that this response merely acknowledged that amendments might occur and did not consent to adding counterclaims. The court found that the proposed plan did not provide unequivocal consent. It also noted that the court’s later scheduling order did not set a deadline or grant permission for the defendants to amend their answer.

Request for Permission to Amend

The defendants alternatively requested leave, meaning the court’s permission, to amend their answer. They argued that discovery had not meaningfully occurred, that they had not acted in bad faith, and that Trisura would not suffer undue prejudice. Trisura argued that the defendants should instead have shown good cause to modify the scheduling order and that their request should be denied because they relied on the wrong rule.

The court concluded that seeking leave under Rule 15 was the appropriate request because the scheduling order did not address the defendants’ deadline or right to amend their answer. Rule 15 generally favors allowing amendments when justice requires, but courts may deny permission because of undue delay, bad faith, repeated failure to fix problems, or prejudice.

The court found undue delay. The defendants filed the counterclaims about six months after their original answer and about four months after discovery began. They incorrectly assumed that Trisura had consented, did not seek clarification from the court for several months, and relied on a case-management-plan provision that addressed anticipated amendments but specifically referred to amendments to the complaint rather than the defendants’ answer.

Ruling

The court denied the defendants’ request for leave to amend their answer to add counterclaims. It also cautioned the defendants about statements in their filings, noting that their amended answer asserted that the scheduling order granted them time to file the counterclaims even though the order did no such thing. The Clerk of Court was requested to remove the defendants’ counterclaims from the docket, and the court directed that Docket No. 123 be closed.