Lee v. Admiral Insurance Company

Background

Berkley Insurance Company moved to dismiss Timothy Hunt Lee’s first amended complaint. Lee did not timely oppose that motion. Instead, he filed a second amended complaint without obtaining either the court’s permission or the opposing parties’ written consent, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2).

The court issued an order to show cause, requiring Lee to explain why the improperly filed second amended complaint should not be stricken. Lee’s counsel acknowledged that filing the complaint without permission or consent was a procedural error and asked the court for leave to amend. Berkley opposed leave, arguing that the proposed second amended complaint remained legally deficient because it did not adequately allege that Berkley received notice during the policy period.

Court’s Analysis

The court declined to decide at that stage whether the proposed amendment would ultimately succeed. It explained that courts generally allow amendment freely and usually consider challenges to the merits of a proposed amended pleading after granting leave and receiving the filed amended complaint. Without formal briefing on Lee’s new allegations about notice, the court could not conclude as a matter of law that the amendment would be futile.

Ruling

Judge Alex G. Tse discharged the order to show cause and granted Lee leave to file the second amended complaint. Berkley’s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint was terminated as moot. The court directed Lee to refile the second amended complaint in compliance with a local filing rule by February 23, 2021. It also continued the initial case-management conference from March 5 to March 26, 2021, at 2:00 p.m.

Effect

The order allowed the amended pleading to be filed and did not decide whether Lee’s claims were legally sufficient. Berkley’s pending motion to dismiss the first amended complaint was no longer considered because the amended complaint would replace it for purposes of the case.