Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Allwire, Inc., et al.

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: June 9, 2026
• Docket: 2:19-cv-09693
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. CV 19-9693-DMG (RAOx) Date June 9, 2026

Title Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Allwire, Inc., et Page 1 of 2 al.

Present: The Honorable DOLLY M. GEE, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DEREK DAVIS NOT REPORTED Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s) Attorneys Present for Defendant(s) None Present None Present

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS—ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT CONSTRUE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND AS A MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT [62]

Plaintiff Travelers Property Casualty Company of America’s (“Travelers”) filed a motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). [Doc. # 62 (“MTA”).] Defendant Allwire, Inc. (“Allwire”) opposed. [Doc. # 66.] Upon review of the briefs, including Travelers’ proposed FAC, it has become apparent to the Court that the motion may be more appropriately characterized as a motion to supplement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d).1

“On motion and reasonable notice, the court may, on just terms, permit a party to serve a supplemental pleading setting out any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d); see Planned Parenthood of Southern Arizona v. Neely, 130 F.3d 400, 402 (9th Cir. 1997); Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467, 473 (9th Cir. 1988). In general, it is the party who opposes a Rule 15 motion to supplement who bears the burden to show the motion should not be granted. See Senza-Gel Corp. v. Seiffhart, 803 F.2d 661, 666 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

In the original Complaint, Travelers alleged claims for (1) declaratory relief on the duty to defend and (2) reimbursement. [Doc. # 1 (“Compl.”) at ¶¶ 27–32.] Travelers agreed to defend Allwire in the underlying action subject to a full reservation of rights. Id. at ¶ 20, 31. The reimbursement claim included costs, fees, and amounts that would be paid in Travelers’ defense of Allwire. Id. at ¶ 31. Travelers’ proposed “amendments” merely add facts as to amounts paid towards settlement, and defense fees and costs, in the underlying action—events that necessarily occurred after the date of the Complaint. See Doc. ## 67 (“All Travelers is trying to do with the Proposed First Amended Complaint is to update Travelers’ causes of action . . .”), 67-1 (proposed

1 The Court’s previously referenced Rule 16(b) based on Travelers’ representation in the parties’ joint stipulation that it intended to file a “motion to amend” the Complaint. See Doc. ## 56 at 4, 60 at 2 n.2. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Title Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Allwire, Inc., et Page 2 of 2 al.

FAC). There does not appear to be any effort to amend the complaint to add new claims or parties. In effect, even if Travelers had not brought a “motion to amend” or the Court denies any motion to supplement, the underlying reimbursement claim would still be at issue and would be subject to proof.

Accordingly, Travelers is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing why the Court should not construe its motion to amend as a motion to supplement. Travelers’ response shall be due by June 16, 2026 and shall not be longer than five pages. Allwire’s response, if any, shall be due by June 23, 2026 and shall not be longer than 10 pages. Failure to timely file a response to this Order may result in the Court construing Travelers’ motion to amend as a motion to supplement.

IT IS SO ORDERED.