Free Memorandum Opinion - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:O7—cv—OOO92-JJF Document 21 Filed O4/28/2008 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
JOANN KAYEA, :
Plaintiff, E
v. E Civil Action No. 07-092 JJF
THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE ;
COMPANY OF AMERICA, a foreign :
company, :
Defendants. ;
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Joann Kayea’s Motion
to Amend (D.I. I4.) For the reasons discussed, the Motion will
be granted.
I. BACKGROUND
On February 2, 2007, Plaintiff Joann Kayea (“Ms. Kayea")
filed a complaint against Defendant The Prudential Insurance
Company of America (“Prudential"). The Complaint alleged that
Prudential violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of I974(“ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. §110I gt seg., when it wrongfully
denied Ms. Kayea long term disability benefits due to her under
an “employee welfare benefit plan.” Ms. Kayea filed this Motion
to Amend her complaint on January 28, 2008 (D.I. I4).
II. DISCUSSION
In order to amend a complaint after an answer has been
filed, a plaintiff must obtain the consent of the opposing party
or the court’s leave to amend. Fed. R. Civ. P. I5. The district

Case 1 :O7—cv—OOO92-JJF Document 21 Filed O4/28/2008 Page 2 of 4
court has discretion in granting a motion to amend, Foman v.
Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962), and “the court should freely
give leave when justice so requires," Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
The Third Circuit has adopted a liberal policy favoring the
amendment of pleadings to ensure that claims are decided on the
merits rather than on technicalities. Dole v. Arco Chem. Co.,
921 F.2d 484, 487 (3d Cir. 1990). Amendment should be permitted
absent a showing of “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on
the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by
amendment previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing
party by virtue of the allowance of the amendment, futility of
the amendment, etc." Foman, 371 U.S. at 182.
Under Rule 8(d), parties may plead inconsistent and
conflicting theories of recovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(2)(“a
party may state as many separate claims or defenses as it has,
regardless of consistency"). However, Rule 12(f) permits courts
to strike from a pleading “an insufficient defense or any
redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(f). Such motions are generally disfavored unless
the matter is clearly irrelevant or will prejudice the adverse
party. See Rechsteiner v. Madison Fund, Inc., 75 F.R.D. 499, 505
(D. Del. 1977).
By her Motion to Amend, Ms. Kayea seeks to add a state—law
breach of contract claim against Prudential. Ms. Kayea contends
2

Case 1 :O7—cv—OOO92-JJF Document 21 Filed O4/28/2008 Page 3 of 4
amendment is appropriate because she originally believed her
disability benefits plan to be an “employee welfare benefit plan"
actionable under ERISA, but has since come to understand her
disability plan is a “governmental plan" exempted from coverage
under ERISA.
In response, Prudential admits that Ms. Kayea's disability
plan is a “governmental plan,” and does not contest amendment for
purposes of adding the state law breach of contract claim. (D.I.
18.) Prudential contends that Ms. Kayea conceded that her
disability plan is not actionable under ERISA, and thus asks that
all allegations relating to ERISA be stricken from the amended
complaint. (D.I. 18.) In turn, Ms. Kayea contends that striking
the ERISA claim from the amended complaint is inappropriate
because: 1) she is permitted to plead in the alternative; and 2)
whether or not the disability coverage is a “governmental plan"
as defined by ERISA is an issue of subject matter jurisdiction
for which the parties should be able to pursue discovery. (D.I.
19 at 2.)
In light of the liberal pleading rules, the Court concludes
that Ms. Kayea's Motion to Amend will be granted, and that the
ERISA claim originally pleaded will not be stricken from the
amended complaint. Prudential has failed to demonstrate any
undue delay, undue prejudice, bad faith or futility which would
justify a denial of leave to amend the complaint. Further,
3

Case 1 :O7—cv—OOO92-JJF Document 21 Filed O4/28/2008 Page 4 of 4
Prudential admits that the long-term disability plan at issue is
a “governmental plan" under ERISA, and does not dispute amendment
of the complaint to add the state claim.
Moreover, the Court will deny Prudential’s request to strike
all allegations relating to ERISA from Ms. Kayea’s amended
complaint. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(d)(2) permits Ms.
Kayea to plead conflicting theories in the alternative, and she
is not required to elect between these recovery theories at this
early stage of the proceedings. The Court is not persuaded to
exercise its authority to strike the ERISA allegations because
Prudential has not shown that they are in any way “redundant,
immaterial or impertinent.” Thus, Ms. Kayea’s amendment adding
the alternative assertion that her long—term disability plan is a
“governmental plan" not actionable under ERISA does not require
that the original ERISA allegations be stricken or dismissed.l
Accordingly, Ms. Kayea’s Motion to Amend will be granted.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
I. Plaintiff Joann Kayea’s Motion to Amend (D.I. I4) is
GRANTED.
April 2008
UN D TA S DISTRI JUDGE
lPrudential may renew its objections to Ms. Kayea’s ERISA
allegations and seek to establish definitively that the
disability plan is not subject to ERISA by a motion for summary
judgment.
4