Danvers-Kidman et al v. Phinney et al

1
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
In re:
Clark Phinney
Debtor
Chapter 7
Case No. 24-10248
Bre Danvers-Kidman
Plaintiff
v.
Clark Phinney
and
Kimberly Phinney
Defendants
Adversary Proceeding
No. 24-01006
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION REQUESTING LEAVE
TO AMEND PLEADINGS AND JOINDER [DKT. NO. 69] AND
DEFERRING RULING ON DEFENDANT CLARK PHINNEY’S
MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER [DKT. NO. 62]
The plaintiff, Bre Danvers-Kidman, has filed a Motion Requesting Leave to Amend
Pleadings and Joinder [Dkt. No. 69], with a proposed amended complaint attached to the motion.
Only one of the defendants, Clark Phinney, responded to the motion [Dkt. No. 75]. 	In his
response, Clark Phinney does not oppose allowing Bre Danvers-Kidman to amend the complaint
but objects to the joinder of Andie Danvers-Kidman as a plaintiff. 	That objection is overruled
for reasons noted below.
First, Mr. Phinney objects that the joinder of Andie Danvers-Kidman would be
involuntary. 	However, because Andie Danvers-Kidman signed the proposed amended
complaint the Court does not see how the joinder could be involuntary.
Case 24-01006 Doc 76 Filed 05/21/26 Entered 05/21/26 11:19:25 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 3

2
Second, Mr. Phinney appears to suggest that adding Andie Danvers-Kidman as “an
entirely new [p]laintiff” might unduly prejudice him, particularly if not given an opportunity to
conduct discovery as to that new plaintiff. 	Mr. Phinney also emphasizes that the litigation
began nearly two years ago.
The request to add Andie Danvers-Kidman should hardly have surprised Mr. Phinney,
given Mr. Phinney’s own arguments about that person’s involvement in this matter. 	Andie
Danvers-Kidman is the spouse of Bre Danvers-Kidman whose claims against the defendants
arose in connection with the planning of the Danvers-Kidman wedding reception. 	For the
duration of the dispute here, Andie Danvers-Kidman has seemed like the most likely non-party
witness that could be called to testify at trial in this matter. 	Thus, the Court questions whether
additional discovery would be needed merely due to adding Andie Danvers-Kidman as a
plaintiff. 	But the Court will nevertheless extend the discovery deadline in due course (as
indicated below). 	Further, although the litigation has been pending for nearly two years, this
adversary proceeding has remained at a relatively early stage throughout—largely due to various
actions and requests of the parties. 	Thus, the Court is not persuaded that the delay before adding
Andie Danvers-Kidman as a plaintiff is unduly prejudicial to Mr. Phinney.
Mr. Phinney does not explain how Andie Danvers-Kidman would not satisfy the
requirements for joinder under Rule 20(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures. 	And the
Court sees no reason why such joinder would be impermissible. 	Thus, Mr. Phinney’s objection
is overruled, and the joinder of Andie Danvers-Kidman is allowed.
Moreover, with no objection to allowing Bre Danvers-Kidman to file the proposed
amended complaint, the motion [Dkt. No. 69] is granted as follows.
1. 	Andie Danvers-Kidman is added as a plaintiff. 	Going forward, that addition must be
reflected in the caption for filings in this adversary proceeding.
Case 24-01006 Doc 76 Filed 05/21/26 Entered 05/21/26 11:19:25 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 3

3
2. 	By June 5, 2026, the plaintiffs must (a) file a copy of the proposed amended
complaint so as to make that complaint the operative complaint in this adversary
proceeding, (b) serve that amended complaint by mail on the defendants and on
counsel to Mr. Phinney; and (c) file a certificate of such service.
3. 	By June 22, 2026, the defendants must file and serve an answer or other response to
that amended complaint.
After the above deadlines have passed, the Court will issue an amended scheduling order or other
order appropriate to the circumstances.
Finally, also pending in this adversary proceeding is Mr. Phinney’s Motion to Amend
Answer [Dkt. No. 62]. 	Because leave has been granted above for the filing of an amended
complaint, the Court will defer ruling on Mr. Phinney’s motion until after the above deadlines
have passed, as the motion might become moot in the course of those events. 	The hearing
scheduled for May 22, 2026, on the motions discussed above [Dkt. Nos. 62, 69] is canceled.
Dated: May 21, 2026
Michael A. Fagone
United States Bankruptcy Judge
District of Maine
Case 24-01006 Doc 76 Filed 05/21/26 Entered 05/21/26 11:19:25 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 3