James Alexander and Kelli Alexander, husband and wife, v. Mutual of Omaha Risk and Insurance Solution Services Inc, Mutual of Omaha Marketing Corporation, and Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company

E.D. Washington

James Alexander and Kelli Alexander, husband and wife, v. Mutual of Omaha Risk and Insurance Solution Services Inc, Mutual of Omaha Marketing Corporation, and Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company

DecidedJanuary 21, 2026

Docket2:24-cv-00426

StatusUnknown

This text of James Alexander and Kelli Alexander, husband and wife, v. Mutual of Omaha Risk and Insurance Solution Services Inc, Mutual of Omaha Marketing Corporation, and Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company (James Alexander and Kelli Alexander, husband and wife, v. Mutual of Omaha Risk and Insurance Solution Services Inc, Mutual of Omaha Marketing Corporation, and Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

James Alexander and Kelli Alexander, husband and wife, v. Mutual of Omaha Risk and Insurance Solution Services Inc, Mutual of Omaha Marketing Corporation, and Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company, (E.D. Wash. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

1 U.S. FDILISETDR IINC TT HCEO URT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 2 Jan 21, 2026 3 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 JAMES ALEXANDER and KELLI No. 2:24-CV-00426-SAB 10 ALEXANDER, husband and wife, 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING 12 v. MOTION TO AMEND; 13 MUTUAL OF OMAHA RISK AND REMANDING TO STATE 14 INSURANCE SOLUTION SERVICES COURT 15 INC, MUTUAL OF OMAHA 16 MARKETING CORPORATION, and 17 MUTUAL OF OMAHA INSURANCE 18 COMPANY, 19 Defendants. 20 21 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Pleadings and Remand to 22 State Court, ECF No. 24. Plaintiffs are represented by F. Dayle Andersen, Jr., 23 Heather Barden, and Dylan L. Good. Defendants are represented by Laura T. 24 Morse and Sarah E. Swale. The Motion was considered without oral argument. 25 Background 26 Plaintiff James Alexander was employed by Defendants to sell insurance 27 and related financial products. Plaintiffs assert Mr. Alexander was fired by 28 Defendants in retaliation for him reporting sexual discrimination and harassment. 1 This case was originally filed in Spokane County Superior Court and Defendants 2 removed the matter to this Court on December 19, 2024. 3 Plaintiffs conducted a deposition of listed witness Brian Briggs shortly after 4 the passing of the November 20, 2025, deadline to amend pleadings and add 5 parties. During this deposition, Plaintiffs assert they discovered new information 6 about two employees of Defendants, Jason Falk and Lauren McNally, who 7 allegedly made defamatory and slanderous statements against Plaintiff James 8 Alexander. In their motion, Plaintiffs assert these individuals tortiously interfered 9 with Mr. Alexander’s business relationship with Defendants, resulting in the 10 termination of his employment contract with Defendants. 11 Plaintiffs now request the Court grant leave to amend their first amended 12 complaint with the Proposed Second Amended Complaint accompanying their 13 motion, joining two new Defendants to the case. One of those Defendants, Jason 14 Falk, is a resident of Washington.1 Plaintiffs are residents of Washington, and the 15 existing Defendants are incorporated in Nebraska. Thus, in adding Mr. Falk as a 16 Defendant, Plaintiffs assert this Court’s jurisdiction over the matter would be 17 destroyed and a remand to state court would be warranted. 18 Defendants argue amendment and remand is improper here, as Plaintiffs had 19 time prior to the passing of the November 20, 2025, deadline to amend pleadings 20 and add parties to conduct the deposition of Brian Briggs, as he has been in 21 communication with Plaintiffs since late 2023 regarding the case. Plaintiffs do not 22 dispute Mr. Briggs involvement in the case since that time, but assert it was not 23 until his deposition that they discovered this new information. 24 25

26 1 The other proposed Defendant, Lauren McNally, is diverse for the purposes of 27 diversity jurisdiction. Her inclusion in the matter is not at issue regarding the 28 potential remand to state court. 1 Standard 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) states that “a party may amend its pleading only 3 with the opposing party’s written consent or the [C]ourt’s leave. The [C]ourt 4 should freely give leave when justice so requires.” In the Ninth Circuit, requests 5 for leave should be granted with extreme liberality. Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 6 F. 3d 962, 972 (9th Cir. 2009) (quotation omitted). This includes requests 7 following scheduling order deadlines, absent bad faith, undue delay, futility, 8 prejudice to the opposing party, or a repeated failure to cure deficiencies. See 9 Moore v. Kayport Package Express, 885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir. 1989). 10 If a complaint is amended to add a non-diverse party following removal of 11 the matter to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, the federal court 12 must remand the matter to state court as it no longer has jurisdiction over the case. 13 Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Servs., Inc., 551 U.S. 224, 231-32 (2007). 14 Analysis 15 There is no clear evidence that Plaintiffs made this motion in bad faith. 16 Plaintiffs moved for amendment shortly after discovering new evidence. As 17 amendments are to be granted liberally, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend is granted. 18 With this amendment, this Court no longer has jurisdiction over the matter due to 19 the presence of non-diverse parties, and the matter is remanded to state court. 20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 21 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Pleadings and Remand to State Court, 22 ECF No. 24, is GRANTED. 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 2. The above-captioned case is remanded to Spokane County Superior Court. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is hereby directed to file this Order, provide copies to counsel, and close the file. 5 DATED this 21st day of January 2026.

8 sin in

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND; REMANDING TO STATE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 U.S. FDILISETDR IINC TT HCEO URT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 2 Jan 21, 2026 3 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 JAMES ALEXANDER and KELLI No. 2:24-CV-00426-SAB 10 ALEXANDER, husband and wife, 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING 12 v. MOTION TO AMEND; 13 MUTUAL OF OMAHA RISK AND REMANDING TO STATE 14 INSURANCE SOLUTION SERVICES COURT 15 INC, MUTUAL OF OMAHA 16 MARKETING CORPORATION, and 17 MUTUAL OF OMAHA INSURANCE 18 COMPANY, 19 Defendants. 20 21 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Pleadings and Remand to 22 State Court, ECF No. 24. Plaintiffs are represented by F. Dayle Andersen, Jr., 23 Heather Barden, and Dylan L. Good. Defendants are represented by Laura T. 24 Morse and Sarah E. Swale. The Motion was considered without oral argument. 25 Background 26 Plaintiff James Alexander was employed by Defendants to sell insurance 27 and related financial products. Plaintiffs assert Mr. Alexander was fired by 28 Defendants in retaliation for him reporting sexual discrimination and harassment. 1 This case was originally filed in Spokane County Superior Court and Defendants 2 removed the matter to this Court on December 19, 2024. 3 Plaintiffs conducted a deposition of listed witness Brian Briggs shortly after 4 the passing of the November 20, 2025, deadline to amend pleadings and add 5 parties. During this deposition, Plaintiffs assert they discovered new information 6 about two employees of Defendants, Jason Falk and Lauren McNally, who 7 allegedly made defamatory and slanderous statements against Plaintiff James 8 Alexander. In their motion, Plaintiffs assert these individuals tortiously interfered 9 with Mr. Alexander’s business relationship with Defendants, resulting in the 10 termination of his employment contract with Defendants. 11 Plaintiffs now request the Court grant leave to amend their first amended 12 complaint with the Proposed Second Amended Complaint accompanying their 13 motion, joining two new Defendants to the case. One of those Defendants, Jason 14 Falk, is a resident of Washington.1 Plaintiffs are residents of Washington, and the 15 existing Defendants are incorporated in Nebraska. Thus, in adding Mr. Falk as a 16 Defendant, Plaintiffs assert this Court’s jurisdiction over the matter would be 17 destroyed and a remand to state court would be warranted. 18 Defendants argue amendment and remand is improper here, as Plaintiffs had 19 time prior to the passing of the November 20, 2025, deadline to amend pleadings 20 and add parties to conduct the deposition of Brian Briggs, as he has been in 21 communication with Plaintiffs since late 2023 regarding the case. Plaintiffs do not 22 dispute Mr. Briggs involvement in the case since that time, but assert it was not 23 until his deposition that they discovered this new information. 24 25

26 1 The other proposed Defendant, Lauren McNally, is diverse for the purposes of 27 diversity jurisdiction. Her inclusion in the matter is not at issue regarding the 28 potential remand to state court. 1 Standard 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) states that “a party may amend its pleading only 3 with the opposing party’s written consent or the [C]ourt’s leave. The [C]ourt 4 should freely give leave when justice so requires.” In the Ninth Circuit, requests 5 for leave should be granted with extreme liberality. Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 6 F. 3d 962, 972 (9th Cir. 2009) (quotation omitted). This includes requests 7 following scheduling order deadlines, absent bad faith, undue delay, futility, 8 prejudice to the opposing party, or a repeated failure to cure deficiencies. See 9 Moore v. Kayport Package Express, 885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir. 1989). 10 If a complaint is amended to add a non-diverse party following removal of 11 the matter to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, the federal court 12 must remand the matter to state court as it no longer has jurisdiction over the case. 13 Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Servs., Inc., 551 U.S. 224, 231-32 (2007). 14 Analysis 15 There is no clear evidence that Plaintiffs made this motion in bad faith. 16 Plaintiffs moved for amendment shortly after discovering new evidence. As 17 amendments are to be granted liberally, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend is granted. 18 With this amendment, this Court no longer has jurisdiction over the matter due to 19 the presence of non-diverse parties, and the matter is remanded to state court. 20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 21 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Pleadings and Remand to State Court, 22 ECF No. 24, is GRANTED. 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 2. The above-captioned case is remanded to Spokane County Superior Court. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is hereby directed to file this Order, provide copies to counsel, and close the file. 5 DATED this 21st day of January 2026.

8 sin in

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND; REMANDING TO STATE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

James Alexander and Kelli Alexander, husband and wife, v. Mutual of Omaha Risk and Insurance Solution Services Inc, Mutual of Omaha Marketing Corporation, and Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-alexander-and-kelli-alexander-husband-and-wife-v-mutual-of-omaha-waed-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack