Acton et al v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company

3:24-cv-00180Ohsd15 de dez. de 2025

Abrir fonte

Texto completo

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
MICHAEL L. ACTON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY
COMPANY,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 3:24-cv-180
Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
______________________________________________________________________________
ENTRY AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE &
CASUALTY COMPANY’S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS OR STRIKE
PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. NO. 39)
______________________________________________________________________________
Currently before the Court is Defendant State Farm Fire & Casualty Company’s Partial
Motion to Dismiss or Strike Portions of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint (the “Motion”) (Doc. No.
39).
By way of background, on October 27, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiffs in this insurance
dispute leave to amend their complaint for purposes of naming a real party in interest, Plaintiff
Northridge Condominium III (“Northridge”). 	(Doc. No. 35.) 	In requesting this amendment,
Plaintiffs submitted a proposed amended complaint, which only referenced two insurance policies
that were subject to dispute here. (See Doc. No. 32 at PageID 126-34.) On November 3, 2025,
Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint (the “Amended Complaint”) (Doc. No. 36).
Therein, Plaintiffs made allegations regarding Defendant State Farm Fire & Casualty Company’s
(“State Farm”) liability under a third insurance policy that was not so much as mentioned in
Plaintiffs’ proposed amendment. 	(Compare Doc. No. 32 at PageID 127, and Doc. No. 36 at
Case: 3:24-cv-00180-TMR-PBS Doc #: 40 Filed: 12/15/25 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2
PageID 157.) By its Motion, State Farm seeks to have all references to this third policy stricken
from the Amended Complaint, as the inclusion of that policy in the Amended Complaint exceeds
the scope of the Court’s granted leave to amend. 	(Doc. No. 39 at PageID 182-83.) 	The Court
agrees and, noting that Plaintiffs have not responded to State Farm’s contentions, will GRANT
State Farm’s Motion.
“[M]otions to strike are generally disfavored, but are within the sound discretion of the trial
court.” 	Fed. Sav. And Loan Ins. Corp. v. Burdette, 718 F. Supp. 649, 662 (E.D. Tenn. 1989)
(citations omitted). 	To this end, courts have exercised their discretion to strike an amended
complaint where the plaintiff’s amendment exceeded the scope of the court’s leave to file. Helms
v. Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 280 F.R.D. 354, 360 (S.D. Ohio 2012) (citing Keithley Instruments,
599 F. Supp. 2d 908, 912 (N.D. Ohio 2009); accord Graves v. Mahoning Cnty., No. 4:10-cv-2821,
2011 WL 3703950, at *4 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 23, 2011)). Here, the Court granted Plaintiffs leave to
amend their complaint for the sole purpose of naming a real party in interest. Instead, Plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint that went on to place a new insurance policy at issue in this case. The
Court finds no need to expound further. On its face, Plaintiffs Amended Complaint exceeds the
scope of the Court’s granted leave to amend for purposes of naming a real party in interest.
Accordingly, Defendant State Farm Fire & Casualty Company’s Partial Motion to Dismiss
or Strike Portions of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 39) is GRANTED. 	The Court
hereby STRIKES any-and-all reference to State Farm Policy No. 35-GB-W164-3, a Personal
Liability Umbrella Policy, from the Amended Complaint. 	If Plaintiffs wish to amend their
complaint to include allegations pertaining to State Farm Policy No. 35-GB-W164-3, they shall
seek leave of Court to do so. Otherwise, Plaintiffs shall file a proper amended complaint which
conforms to the leave previously granted no later than Friday, December 19, 2025.
Case: 3:24-cv-00180-TMR-PBS Doc #: 40 Filed: 12/15/25 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
3
DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Monday, December 15, 2025.
s/Thomas M. Rose
________________________________
THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 3:24-cv-00180-TMR-PBS Doc #: 40 Filed: 12/15/25 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude

Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.