United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
B.
Lynn Winmill Chief Judge.
I
INTRODUCTION
Before
the Court is Defendant Safeco Insurance Company of
Illinois' Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 55),
as well as Plaintiff Barbara Bostock's motion for an
extension of time to file an amended complaint. (Dkt. 61).
Additionally, defendants have filed various motions to
strike, including motions to strike Bostock's First
Amended Complaint. See Dkts. 66, 68, 69, 77, 78. For
the reasons explained below, the Court will: (1) grant
Safeco's renewed motion for summary judgment; (2) deny
Bostock's motion for an extension of time in which to
file an amended complaint; (3) grant the motions to strike
the first amended complaint; and (4) grant in part and deny
in part Safeco's other motions to strike.
II
PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION
The
Court will first resolve Bostock's motion for an
extension of time and then turn to the remaining motions.
A.
Background
Bostock
is representing herself in this action. In February 2014, she
sued three defendants: (1) Aurora Loan Services, LLC, (2)
Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. (MERS), and (3)
Safeco Insurance Company. See Dkt. 1. In March 2016,
the Court granted Defendants Aurora and MERS' motion to
dismiss the complaint against them. The Court construed
Bostock's complaint as alleging three claims against
those defendants: (1) attempted wrongful foreclosure; (2)
intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (3)
negligent infliction of emotional distress. The Court
dismissed the attempted wrongful foreclosure claim without
leave to amend and dismissed the emotional distress claims
with leave to amend. Plaintiff was allowed 30 days in which
to file an amended complaint. See Order, Dkt. 40, at
9.
Bostock
did not file an amended complaint within the allotted 30
days. Instead, in October 2016 - over six months after the
April 2016 deadline had passed and after Defendant Safeco had
filed a second motion for summary judgment - Bostock asked
for an extension of time in which to file an amended
complaint. See Oct. 24, 2016 Request for Additional Time
to File First Amended Complaint, Dkt. 60. Then, in
December 2016, before the Court ruled on her request for an
extension, Bostock filed her First Amended Complaint. See
First Am. Compl., Dkt. 74. All defendants oppose
Bostock's request for an extension and have moved to
strike the late-filed First Amended Complaint.
B.
Discussion
Defendants
MERS and Aurora analyze this motion under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B), which authorizes the Court to
grant an extension after the original time for acting has
expired “if the party failed to act because of
excusable neglect.” Defendant Safeco says the motion
should be analyzed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
16(b), which addresses requests to amend the complaint when a
scheduling order is in place.
Bostock
cannot satisfy either standard. The more lenient,
“excusable neglect” standard is forth in Rule
6(b), which provides:
When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the
court may, for good cause, extend the time . . . on motion
made after the time has expired if the party failed to act
because of excusable neglect.
Fed. R. Civ. 6(b)(1)(B). Generally, Rule 6(b)(1), “like
all the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is to be liberally
construed to effectuate the general purpose of seeing that
cases are tried on the merits.” Ahanchian v. Xenon
Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258-59 (9th Cir. 2010)
(internal quotation marks, citation, and alteration omitted).
More specifically, in determining whether neglect is
excusable, the Court considers four factors: “(1) the
danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of
the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings; (3)
the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in
good faith.” Bateman v. U.S. Postal Serv., 231
F.3d 1220, 1223-24 (9th Cir. 2000).
Beginning
with the second factor, an eight-month delay is lengthy,
particularly in this relatively straightforward case, and
allowing an amended complaint at this stage in the
proceedings would obviously trigger even more
delay.[1]
Regarding
the reason for the delay, Bostock says she was late in filing
an amended complaint (as well as in requesting an extension)
“because of being ill, and not being represented by an
attorney.” Dkt. 60, at 7. She does not provide much
detail, however, other than to say that she now has a
paralegal assisting her, that she was in the emergency room
in October 2016, and that she has been in the emergency room
four times since November 2014. Id. In a
supplemental filing, Bostock submitted a letter from a
doctor, indicating that she was seen in an emergency room on
February 20, 2016, June 5, 2016, and October 17, 2016.
See Nov. 3, 2016 Filing, Dkt. 64.[2]
While
the Court is usually amenable to granting extensions for
health-related reasons, the party seeking the extension still
must provide more specific information than Bostock has
provided to justify an extension. Further, even assuming an
extension would have been appropriate, the Court would not
have granted an eight-month extension, particularly where
Bostock filed many other documents during this same period.
Specifically, between March 16, 2016, the date of the
Court's order granting leave to amend, and December 30,
2016, the date Bostock filed her amended complaint, Bostock
filed various documents with the Court, see Dkts.
42, 44, 45, 47, 57, 58, 60, 61, 64, 70, including a May 2,
2016 request for additional time to respond to Safeco's
then-pending motion for summary judgment. See Request for
Additional Time to Reply, Dkt. 45. This suggests that
despite any medical issues, plaintiff could have timely filed
an amended complaint, or, at a minimum, she could have moved
for an extension of time much earlier. Instead, she remained
silent on this point, white at the same time raising other
issues with the Court. On this record, Bostock has failed to
show a reasonable basis for her lengthy delay. See
generally 4B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller,
Federal Practice & Procedure § 1165 (4th
ed.) (“Generally, excusable neglect seems to require a
demonstration of good faith on the part of the party seeking
an extension of time and some reasonable basis for
noncompliance within the time specified in the
rules.”) (emphasis added).
The
Court further finds that an eight-month delay would be
prejudicial to defendants and unnecessarily delay resolution
of this case. Most significantly, the discovery period has
passed, as has the deadline for filing dispositive motions.
On
these facts, even assuming Bostock acted in good faith, the
Court cannot find excusable neglect. The Court will therefore
deny Bostock's motion for an extension of time in which
to file an amended complaint and grant the motions to strike
the amended complaint.
III
SAFECO'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The
Court will next resolve Safeco's renewed motion for
summary judgment. Bostock alleges that Safeco breached the
terms of a homeowner's insurance policy by failing to pay
for damages associated with a February 2009 house flood. As
explained below, however, Safeco was not obligated to pay
Bostock's claim under the policy because Safeco had
canceled Bostock's coverage as of January 13, 2009. The
Court will therefore grant summary judgment in Safeco's
favor.
A.
Relevant Facts
Bostock
resides in California, but for several years she owned a home
in Sun Valley, Idaho. On February 11, 2009, Bostock's
daughter stopped by the home and discovered ice and running
water around the outside of the house and garage. Bostock
later learned that a pipe servicing a jacuzzi had burst and
water had leaked inside the home, causing extensive damage.
On
December 8, 2008, roughly two months before the flood was
discovered, Safeco notified Bostock that unless she made a
premium payment by January 12, 2009, her homeowner's
insurance policy would be canceled. See Non-Pay Warning
Notice, Ex. 1 to Faulkner Dec., Dkt. 41-4 (“This
is the last notice you will receive.”). Bostock did not
make any payment in response to that notice, and on January
20, 2009, Safeco sent Bostock a billing statement indicating
that her policy had been “cancelled effective Jan 13,
2009 for non-payment.” See Ex. 2 to Faulkner
Dec., Dkt. 41-4. Bostock did not make any payment in
response to that notice, nor did she attempt to reinstate the
policy until shortly after she learned of the flood. See
Ex Faulkner Dec., Ex 6, at ¶ 90.
Before
Safeco canceled Bostock's coverage under the policy,
Bostock often paid her monthly premium late. The one-year
policy period began with a March 2008 renewal. The renewal
notice indicated that Bostock would need to pay $357.09 in
arrearages on her account to prevent the policy from being
canceled. See Id. (“A $357.09 payment for the
outstanding bill on your account must be postmarked by March
16, 2008 to prevent cancellation of the policies on your
account.”). Bostock paid the arrearages, and then
continued to make monthly payments during most of 2008. These
payments were typically ...