Cove Partners, LLC v. XL Specialty Insurance Co.
692 F. App'x 466
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Cove Partners sued XL Specialty over the policy coverage at issue.
- The district court denied Cove Partners leave to amend the first amended complaint to add a rescission claim and to allege more facts for its reformation claim.
- Cove Partners sought leave to amend for a reformation theory; rescission was not sought in district court and was raised later in appellate briefing.
- The district court’s denial is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- The panel concluded the rescission issue was waived because it was raised on appeal rather than in the district court.
- Reformation requires showing mutual mistake and that the contract does not reflect the parties’ intent; the proposed amendments failed to describe XL Specialty’s intent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend to add rescission. | Cove Partners argues for rescission. | XL Specialty contends rescission was not properly pleaded and raised late. | Waived; appellate rescission not considered. |
| Whether the district court properly denied leave to amend to support reformation. | Cove Partners seeks more facts to support mutual mistake. | XL Specialty asserts amendments cannot cure deficiencies without showing intent. | Affirmed; proposed amendments did not cure deficiencies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2009) (abuse of discretion standard for denial of leave to amend)
- Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2003) (liberality of leave to amend subject to not saving a deficient claim)
- Universal Mortg. Co. v. Prudential Ins. Co., 799 F.2d 458 (9th Cir. 1986) (reformation requires showing mutual mistake and intent of parties)
- Yamada v. Nobel Biocare Holding AG, 825 F.3d 536 (9th Cir. 2016) (issues raised for first time on appeal are generally waived)