Vance v. Berkshire Hathaway Life Insurance Company of Nebraska

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: January 4, 2021
• Docket: 3:20-cv-01480
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 TERA VANCE, an individual, Case No.: 3:20-cv-01480-BEN-KSC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED 12 v. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 13 AMENDED COMPLAINT BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY LIFE

14 INSURANCE COMPANY OF

NEBRASKA, an entity, and KRISTIN 15 [ECF No. 13] BARNETT, an individual, 16 Defendants. 17 18 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Tera Vance’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion 19 for Leave to Amend to Add a Party Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. ECF 20 No. 13. Defendant Berkshire Hathaway Life Insurance Company of Nebraska (“BHLN”) 21 filed a Response to the Motion indicating it did not oppose Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave 22 to Amend, but only as to “those claims that survived the original Motion to Dismiss.” 23 Response, ECF No. 16, 2. Defendant Kirstin Barnett did not file a Response, and 24 Plaintiff did not file any reply. The Motion is now ripe for determination. 25 I. LEGAL STANDARD 26 Once a responsive pleading is filed, plaintiff can amend a complaint “only with the 27 opposing party’s written consent or the court's leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “The 28 court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Id.; see also Morongo Band of 1 || Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir.1990) (stating that leave to amend 2 to be granted with “extreme liberality”). “The power to grant leave to amend, 3 || however, is entrusted to the discretion of the district court, which determines the 4 || propriety of a motion to amend by ascertaining the presence of any of four factors: bad 5 || faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, and/or futility.” Serra v. Lappin, 600 6 || F.3d 1191, 1200 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Generally, 7 ||amendments adding claims are granted more freely than amendments adding parties. 8 || Union Pacific R.R. Co. v. Nevada Power Co., 950 F.2d 1429, 1432 (9th Cir.1991). 9 ||. ANALYSIS 10 Through her Motion, Plaintiff seeks to add BGH Structured Settlements, Inc. 11 ||(‘BGH”) as a Defendant in this action and amends the factual allegations of her claims 12 || that were dismissed without prejudice in the Court’s recent order. Id. at 2, Ex. 1; Order, 13 No. 11. As discussed in that Order, it appears from the Parties’ briefing that BHG 14 || (not BHLN) may be the correct Defendant for Plaintiff's surviving claims. Due to the 15 ||/close relationship that exists between BHLN and BHG in the structured settlement 16 || annuity context, the Court is confident BHLN’s representation that “neither BHLN nor 17 ||BHG will object to BGH being added as a party” may be taken at face value. Response, 18 || ECF No. 16, 2. Moreover, the Court does not find any “bad faith, undue delay, prejudice 19 || to the opposing party, and/or futility” present in the instant Motion. Serra, 600 F.3d at 20 || 1200. Accordingly, the Motion is granted. 21 CONCLUSION 22 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend to Add a Party Pursuant to Federal Rule of 23 || Civil Procedure 15 (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file her Amended 24 ||Complaint within fourteen (14) days of this Order. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. f "

26 Dated: December 30, 2020 on. Roger T. Benitez 27 United States District Judge 28