Bonnie Lucas v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company
17-12676
| 11th Cir. | Nov 15, 2017Background
- November 9, 2014 auto accident: another driver struck Bonnie Lucas’s car; Bonnie and Richard Lucas sued their insurer USAA for underinsured-motorist benefits.
- Case removed to federal court on diversity grounds after state-court filing and first amended complaint.
- District court dismissed the first amended complaint (Dec. 16, 2016) under Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b) and for failure to allege facts establishing liability/damages against the underinsured tortfeasor; plaintiffs were granted leave to amend.
- Plaintiffs filed second, third, and an untimely fourth amended complaints; USAA moved to dismiss the subsequent pleadings.
- District court dismissed the third amended complaint for failure to state a plausible underinsured-motorist claim and for Rule 10(b) deficiencies, struck the fourth amended complaint for missing the scheduling-order deadline and for lack of good cause, and entered dismissal with prejudice.
- Plaintiffs appealed; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the third amended complaint pleaded a plausible underinsured-motorist claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and Rules 8/10 | Lucas argued the amended pleadings sufficed to state their claim for underinsured benefits | USAA argued pleadings lacked factual allegations about the accident, liability, and damages and failed to separate claims (Mr. Lucas’s derivative claim) | Court: Dismissal proper—complaint lacked factual content to plausibly show entitlement to relief and violated Rules 8(a)/10(b) |
| Whether dismissal should have been without prejudice (leave to amend) | Lucas argued state pleading rules and/or that further amendment should be allowed | USAA argued plaintiffs repeatedly failed to cure defects and further amendment would be futile/prejudicial | Court: Dismissal with prejudice proper due to repeated failures to cure; additional amendment would be futile |
| Whether the fourth amended complaint should be stricken as untimely under the scheduling order | Lucas contended extra amendment was permitted or should be allowed | USAA argued the amendment was untimely under the Nov. 18 scheduling deadline and plaintiffs showed no good cause to modify the schedule | Court: Striking proper—plaintiffs did not show Rule 16(b) good cause and missed the scheduling-order deadline |
| Whether federal or Florida pleading rules govern dismissal/leave-to-amend | Lucas urged application of Florida procedural standards | USAA argued Federal Rules apply in federal diversity cases | Court: Federal Rules control; Eleventh Circuit precedent applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Hunt v. Aimco Properties, L.P., 814 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir.) (Rule 12(b)(6) standard: accept factual allegations and view in plaintiffs’ favor)
- Weiland v. Palm Beach Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir.) (standards for pleading clarity under Rules 8 and 10)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for claims)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility and that conclusory allegations are insufficient)
- Bryant v. Dupree, 252 F.3d 1161 (11th Cir.) (leave to amend generally required unless undue delay/repeated failure/futility)
- Sosa v. Airprint Sys., Inc., 133 F.3d 1417 (11th Cir.) (need to show Rule 16(b) good cause to amend after scheduling-order deadline)