Shields et al v. TransAmerica Premier Life Insurance Company et al, No. 2:2020cv00438 - Document 54 (E.D. Wash. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING 44 DEFENDANT NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWER AND DENYING 39 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARYJUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr. (MRJ, Case Administrator)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Shields et al v. TransAmerica Premier Life Insurance Company et al Case 2:20-cv-00438-SMJ ECF No. 54 Doc. 54 filed 03/16/22 PageID.1154 Page 1 of 7 FI LED I N THE U.S. DI STRI CT COURT EASTERN DI STRI CT OF WASHI NGTON 1 Mar 16, 2022 2 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 3 4 5 6 RONALD SHIELDS, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of NORMA SHIELDS, and on behalf of the marital community of RONALD SHIELDS and NORMA SHIELDS, 7 Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 TRANSAMERICA PREMIER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Iowa Corporation; NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, a New York Foreign Nonprofit Corporation, d/b/a NRA Endorsed Insurance Program; and, A.G.I.A. Inc., a California Corporation d/b/a AGIA Infinity, and as agent/Partner of NRA Endorsed Insurance Program, No. 2:20-cv-00438-SMJ ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWER AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendant. 16 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 17 Dismissal Various Affirmative Defenses Asserted by Defendant NRA, ECF No. 39, 18 and Defendant NRA’s Motion for Leave to Amend Answer to Plaintiff’s Amended 19 Complaint, ECF No. 44. In Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment, he 20 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWER AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT – 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:20-cv-00438-SMJ ECF No. 54 filed 03/16/22 PageID.1155 Page 2 of 7 1 seeks Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 dismissal of certain affirmative defenses 2 pled by Defendant. ECF No. 39. In response, Defendant seeks leave of Court to 3 amend its answer to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint to “provide fuller explanation 4 of certain defenses.” ECF No. 44 at 2. Having reviewed the relevant record, and 5 consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2)’s direction to freely grant 6 leave to amend, the Court grants Defendant’s motion and denies Plaintiff’s motion 7 with leave to renew. BACKGROUND 8 9 Plaintiff Ronald Shields sued Defendants on November 25, 2020, asserting a 10 myriad of claims arising out of a cancer indemnity insurance policy he purchased 11 as part of a National Rifle Association of American (“NRA”) program offered to 12 NRA members. See generally ECF No. 1. Plaintiff asserts these claims individually 13 and in representative capacities on behalf of his late wife’s estate and their marital 14 estate. Id. at 2. 15 Plaintiff originally purchased indemnity insurance in 1986 through North 16 American Life and Casualty Company. ECF No. 1 at 9, 28. After North American 17 Life and Casualty Company ceased underwriting the coverage, Monumental Life 18 Insurance Company, now TransAmerica Life Insurance Company 19 20 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWER AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT – 2 Case 2:20-cv-00438-SMJ ECF No. 54 filed 03/16/22 PageID.1156 Page 3 of 7 1 (“TransAmerica”), issued a cancer indemnity insurance policy (“the Policy”) that 2 insures Plaintiff and insured his deceased wife.1 Id. ¶ 1.1 3 On April 8, 2019, Plaintiff submitted a death benefit claim under the Policy 4 for benefits related to his wife’s cancer treatment and for “other promised benefits.” 5 Id. at 4; see also ECF No. 25 at 5. After TransAmerica closed the claim without 6 paying it, Plaintiff instituted this action.2 7 On October 5, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave of Court to file an 8 amended complaint. ECF No. 19. Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint corrected 9 typographical errors and included a claim for punitive damages under the laws of 10 New York, Iowa, and California. ECF No. 19. Defendant opposed Plaintiff’s 11 motion, but the Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend under Rule 15(a)(2)’s liberal 12 standard. ECF No. 30. The Court will afford Defendant the same opportunity. LEGAL STANDARD 13 14 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) directs Courts to “freely give leave” 15 to amend the pleadings “when justice so requires.” Although courts must be 16 generous in granting leave to amend, United States v. Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d 17 1 18 19 20 This Policy, issued in 2014, appears to offer different benefits than those offered under the first policy purchased in 1986. See generally ECF No. 1 at Ex. 1,4. 2 The gist of Plaintiff’s grievances—set forth through fourteen causes of action— is that Defendant TransAmerica has failed to honor its obligations under the Policy and that Defendants TransAmerica, NRA, and AGAI (the third-party administrator of the Policy) engaged in deceptive acts and practices. See generally ECF No. 1. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWER AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT – 3 Case 2:20-cv-00438-SMJ ECF No. 54 filed 03/16/22 PageID.1157 Page 4 of 7 1 984, 995 (9th Cir. 2011), such leave is not automatic, see Parish v. Frazier, 195 2 F.3d 761, 763 (5th Cir. 1999). Granting leave to amend is within the discretion of 3 the trial court. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Courts consider 4 several factors, including (1) bad faith on the part of the movant; (2) undue delay; 5 (3) prejudice to the opposing party; (4) futility of amendment; (5) and whether the 6 plaintiff has previously amended the complaint. Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d at 7 995. 8 A court may deny leave to amend “if the proposed amendment is futile or 9 would be subject to dismissal.” Wheeler v. City of Santa Clara, 894 F.3d 1046, 1059 10 (9th Cir. 2018). An amendment is futile when “no set of facts can be proved under 11 the amendment to the pleadings that would constitute a valid and sufficient claim 12 or defense.” Miller v. Rykoff–Sexton, 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 1988). DISCUSSION 13 14 Plaintiff seeks summary dismissal of 22 of Defendant’s affirmative defenses, 15 arguing they lack legal and factual support and fail to provide fair notice to Plaintiff. 16 See generally ECF No. 39. While Defendant disputes the merits of Plaintiff’s 17 motion, it also requests the Court permit it to amend its answer to further elaborate 18 the grounds for its defenses.3 ECF No. 44. 19 20 3 The Court notes that Defendant did not respond to Plaintiff’s motion requesting leave to amend its answer. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWER AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT – 4 Case 2:20-cv-00438-SMJ ECF No. 54 filed 03/16/22 PageID.1158 Page 5 of 7 1 As an initial matter, a review of the relevant record does not reveal any bad 2 faith on the part of Defendant. To the contrary, Defendant promptly sought leave— 3 filing its motion less the one month after Plaintiff contested the merits of 4 Defendant’s affirmative defenses. Moreover, Plaintiff requested leave before the 5 deadline to amend pleadings passed, and well before the discovery cutoff in this 6 matter. Trial is not set to commence for eight months, and the parties are still in the 7 relatively early stages of discovery.4 Given that trial remains distant, and the 8 discovery deadline has not yet passed, any prejudice to Plaintiff at this juncture is 9 minimal. Of course, should Plaintiff petition the Court for a continuance due to any 10 delay caused by Defendant’s amended answer, the Court will consider this order as 11 a basis. 12 Having reviewed the Defendant’s proposed amended answer, ECF No. 44-1, 13 the Court cannot say that the proposed amendments are futile, such that “no set of 14 facts can be proved under the amendment to the pleadings that would constitute a 15 valid and sufficient claim or defense.” Miller, 845 F.2d at 214. Rather, the proposed 16 amendments seek to cure the deficiencies identified by Plaintiff, which will further 17 the efficient resolution of this case. Finally, this is Defendant’s first request to 18 amend its answer. But, given that both parties have now been afforded an 19 20 4 Defendant proffers that as of the date it filed its motion, the parties have not yet conducted any depositions in this matter. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWER AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT – 5 Case 2:20-cv-00438-SMJ ECF No. 54 filed 03/16/22 PageID.1159 Page 6 of 7 1 opportunity to amend their respective pleadings, the Court cautions the parties that 2 it will scrutinize subsequent requests for leave to amend, particularly as the 3 discovery cutoff and trial date draw near. Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant 4 leave to file an amended answer to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. 5 With this in mind, Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment is denied, 6 but he will be granted leave to renew his motion. Because the Court has granted 7 Defendant leave to amend, it would be inefficient to rule on Plaintiff’s request to 8 dismiss Defendant’s affirmative defenses as originally pled. However, Plaintiff may 9 renew his motion if Defendant’s amended answers suffer from the same (or new) 10 deficiencies. 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 12 1. Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Amend Answer to Plaintiff’s 13 Amended Complaint, ECF No. 44, is GRANTED. 14 A. Defendant shall file its amended answer complaint by no later than two from the date of this Order. 15 2. 16 Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissal Various 17 Affirmative Defenses Asserted by Defendant NRA, ECF No. 39, is 18 DENIED WITH LEAVE TO RENEW. 19 // 20 // ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWER AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT – 6 Case 2:20-cv-00438-SMJ 1 // 2 // 3 // 4 5 6 7 8 ECF No. 54 filed 03/16/22 PageID.1160 Page 7 of 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order and provide copies to all counsel. DATED this 16th day of March 2022. _________________________ SALVADOR MENDOZA, JR. United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWER AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT – 7
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
