Opinion
No. 02-2402-JWL
March 24, 2003
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 502(a)(1)(B) and 1132(a)(1)(B) to determine, clarify and enforce her rights to receive short and long-term disability benefits as a result of her employment with Defendant Citigroup, Inc. Currently pending before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (doc. 19) and Defendants' Motion to Amend Scheduling Order (doc. 22) For the reasons stated below, both motions will be granted.
Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff filed her Complaint on August 29, 2002. Plaintiff states that, at the time she filed this Complaint, she assumed her short-term disability plan was governed by the Employee Retirement Income Securities Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"). Given this assumption, Plaintiff believed she was preempted from bringing state law claims against Defendants that arise out of the wrongful denial of her claim for short-term disability benefits.
Plaintiff maintains that during the course of discovery in this matter, it became apparent that Plaintiff's short-term disability plan is not an "employee welfare benefit plan" within the meaning of ERISA and is therefore not subject to or governed by ERISA regulations. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to amend her Complaint to add eleven new state law claims against Defendants.
Defendants object to the amendments, arguing "plaintiff is relying on an inapplicable federal regulation, and based on that reliance, has asserted numerous inapplicable theories which defendants believe will serve only to multiply the proceedings, complicate this matter unnecessarily, and prolong its ultimate resolution."
Defendants' Suggestions in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint at p. 1 (doc. 21).
Discussion
Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows one amendment of the pleadings, before a responsive pleading is served or within twenty days after service. Subsequent amendments are allowed by leave of court or by written consent of an adverse party and should be "freely given when justice so requires." "The decision to grant leave to amend a [pleading], after the permissive period, is within the trial court's discretion . . . and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion." The district court should deny leave to amend only when it finds "undue delay, undue prejudice to the opposing party, bad faith or dilatory motive, failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, or futility of amendment."Defendants argue the amendments proposed by Plaintiff assert numerous inapplicable theories of law, which will serve only to multiply the proceedings, complicate this matter unnecessarily, and prolong its ultimate resolution." Based on this argument, and the rules applicable to amendment of pleadings, the Court will construe Defendants' sole argument to be futility of the proposed amendments.
A court may deny a motion to amend as futile if the proposed amendment would not withstand a motion to dismiss or if it otherwise fails to state a claim. In order to determine whether the proposed amendment is futile, this Court must analyze Plaintiff's proposed amendments as if they were before the Court on a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).
Lyle v. Commodity Credit Corp., 898 F. Supp. 808, 810 (D.Kan. 1995) (citing Ketchum v. Cruz, 961 F.2d 916, 220 (10th Cir. 1992)), aff'd., 104 F.3d 367 (10th Cir. 1996).
Given the posture of this litigation, the Court declines to engage in such an analysis at this time, finding it more appropriate to consider the issues presented in the context of a dispositive motion. In coming to this decision, the Court takes into account Defendants' stated intention to move for dismissal of Plaintiff's eleven new state law claims if the Court decides to grant the pending Motion to Amend.
See Defendants' Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order (doc. 22) (requesting Court amend scheduling order to set Motion to Dismiss deadline fifteen days after ruling on Motion to Amend).
Based on this discussion, it is hereby ordered that
(1) Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (doc. 19) is granted. Pursuant to D. Kan Rule 15.1(a), the Clerk shall detach and file the original First Amended Complaint, and it shall be deemed filed as of the date this Order is filed. Plaintiff shall serve the First Amended Complaint on Defendants within five (5) days after the First Amended Complaint is deemed filed. In addition, Plaintiff shall file a separate certificate of service; and
(2) Defendants' Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order (doc. 22) is granted to the extent that the March 7, 2002 deadline before which any motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, venue, propriety of the parties, or failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted is reset to March 28, 2003.
IT IS SO ORDERED.