Birkan v. Richland Holdings, Inc., 2:16-cv-01766

Plaintiff filed an FDCPA complaint on July 26, 2016 against Richland Holdings, Inc.
In December 2016, after the complaint was filed, Defendant allegedly refused the plaintiff’s insurer payment for the debt underlying the suit.
Plaintiff moved on March 17, 2017 for leave to file a supplemental complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d) to add allegations about Defendant’s post‑complaint conduct.
Defendant opposed, arguing the delayed request was prejudicial and a tactic to extend discovery.
The court reviewed Rule 15(d)’s liberal standard for supplementation, including that delay alone is not dispositive and supplementation is favored for judicial economy.
The court concluded the supplemental allegations were related to the original claims, not filed in bad faith, and granted leave to file the supplemental complaint.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether leave to file a supplemental complaint under Rule 15(d) should be granted	Birkan sought to add December 2016 allegations about Defendant’s refusal to accept insurer payment as events occurring after the original pleading	Richland argued the request was delayed, prejudicial, and aimed at extending discovery	Court granted leave: supplementation allowed because allegations related to original claims, no bad faith, and delay alone insufficient to deny

Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467 (9th Cir. 1988) (Rule 15(d) is favored for judicial economy and courts have broad discretion to permit supplementation)
Planned Parenthood of So. Arizona v. Neely, 130 F.3d 400 (9th Cir. 1997) (denial of supplementation appropriate when new claims are unrelated and belong in separate suits)
San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 236 F.R.D. 491 (E.D. Cal. 2006) (delay alone is not sufficient reason to deny a motion to supplement)
Bromley v. Michigan Educ. Ass'n–NEA, 178 F.R.D. 148 (E.D. Mich. 1998) (same: delay without more does not mandate denial of supplementation)