IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 
 
DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN 
 
  
CUBICA GROUP LLLP, 
     
 
 
 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
 
 
CASE NO. 2011-108 
 
v. 
 
MAPFRE PUERTO RICAN 
AMERICAN INSURANCE 
COMPANY(MAPFRE) and 
ARACELIS ACEVEDO, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Defendants. 
 
 
 
 
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 
 
 
Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint 
to: (1) add Oceanside Village, Inc. as a plaintiff, (2) add a breach 
of contract cause of action on behalf of Oceanside against MAPFRE 
Puerto Rican American Insurance Company, (3) delete its bad faith 
cause of action against Aracelis Acevedo, and (4) delete its Count 
for punitive damages (ECF 48).1   
A.  Factual and Procedural Background 
On June 18, 2007, Oceanside Village, Inc., and Cubica Group LLLP 
entered into a contract, wherein Cubica was to build an affordable 
housing community at Raphune Vistas, 1-13 Donoe, St. Thomas. (Motion 
to Amend, ECF 48, at 1).  The project was to be substantially 
                     
1 In plaintiff’s motion, plaintiff requests leave only to amend the complaint to 
add Oceanside as an additional plaintiff.  The additional amendments, however, 
are reflected in the proposed First Amended Complaint.  Additionally, although 
plaintiff seeks to delete the separate Count for punitive damages, plaintiff still 
prays for an award of punitive damages.   
 
Case: 3:11-cv-00108-CVG-RM   Document #: 81   Filed: 06/26/12   Page 1 of 6
Cubica Group, LLLP v. MAPFRE Puerto Rican American Ins. Co., et al., 
Civil No. 2011-108 
Page 2 of 6 
 
 
completed by December 10, 2010. Id.  On August 30, 2010, Hurricane 
Earl struck St. Thomas and caused significant damage to several of 
the units. Id. at 2. 
When Hurricane Earl struck, the project was covered under a 
Builder’s Risk policy, which Cubica had entered into with MAPFRE, 
and under which Oceanside was “an intended beneficiary under the 
policy.”2 Id.  MAPFRE initially agreed that the storm damage to the 
units was covered under the policy, but it subsequently denied 
coverage on the basis that “the property did not have adequate limits 
of insurance” and because of MAPFRE’s misapplication of a 
“co-insurance penalty to the value of the loss.” Id.  The denial of 
coverage caused Cubica to be unable to complete the project by the 
contracted completion date, and as a consequence, Cubica was unable 
to “turn those units over to Oceanside, who, in turn, could not sell 
those units at a profit.”  Id.  
On these facts, plaintiff now seeks to add Oceanside as a 
plaintiff.  MAPFRE contends that the motion should be denied for two 
reasons.  First, MAPRE claims there has been undue delay in moving 
to amend.  Second, in addition to satisfying the requirements of Rule 
                     
2  In support of its motion, plaintiff submits, as Exhibit B, the Declaration to 
its Builder’s Risk policy with MAPFRE evidencing that Oceanside was a named insured 
under the policy for the one-year period October 16, 2007 through October 16, 2008, 
and Exhibit C, an endorsement evidencing that Oceanside was a named insured under 
the policy for the one-year period October 16, 2009 through October 16, 2010.   
Case: 3:11-cv-00108-CVG-RM   Document #: 81   Filed: 06/26/12   Page 2 of 6
Cubica Group, LLLP v. MAPFRE Puerto Rican American Ins. Co., et al., 
Civil No. 2011-108 
Page 3 of 6 
 
 
15(a), MAPFRE argues that plaintiff must satisfy the joinder 
requirements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a).  
B.  Legal Standard 
1. Rule 15(a) 
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that leave to amend 
a complaint should be freely given when justice so requires.  Fed. R. 
Civ. P. 15(a).   However,  
[w]hile Rule 15(a) provides that leave to amend should be 
“freely given,” a district court has discretion to deny a 
request to amend if it is apparent from the record that (1) the 
moving party has demonstrated undue delay, bad faith or dilatory 
motives, (2) the amendment would be futile, or (3) the amendment 
would prejudice the other party.  
 
Hill v. City of Scranton, 411 F.3d 118, 134 (3d Cir. 2005); see also 
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).  Whether to grant leave to 
amend lies within a court’s discretion. Pennsylvania Employees Ben. 
Trust Fund v. Zeneca, Inc., 499 F.3d 239, 252 (3d Cir. 2007).  
“Prejudice to the non-moving party is the touchstone for the denial 
of an amendment,” and such prejudice must be substantial or undue. Lorenz 
v. CSX Corp., 1 F. 3d 1406, 1413-14 (3d Cir. 1993)(quoting Cornell & 
Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm’n, 573 F.2d 820, 823 
(3d Cir. 1978)). Prejudice in this context has been held to mean that 
the non-movant is “unfairly disadvantaged.” See Bechtel v. Robinson, 
886 F.2d 644, 652 (3d Cir. 1989) (citations omitted). “Futility” denotes 
Case: 3:11-cv-00108-CVG-RM   Document #: 81   Filed: 06/26/12   Page 3 of 6
Cubica Group, LLLP v. MAPFRE Puerto Rican American Ins. Co., et al., 
Civil No. 2011-108 
Page 4 of 6 
 
 
that “the complaint, as amended, would fail to state a claim upon which 
relief may be granted.” Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 115 (3d Cir. 2000). 
2. Rule 20(a)(1) 
Rule 20(a)(1) provides that “[p]ersons may join in one action 
as plaintiffs if: 
(A) 
they assert any right to relief jointly, 
severally, or in the alternative with 
respect to or arising out of the same 
transaction, occurrence, or series of 
transactions or occurrences; and  
 
(B) 
any question of law or fact common to all 
plaintiffs will arise in the action. 
 
C. Analysis 
 
Defendant cites Hinson v. Norwest Financial South Carolina, 
Inc., 239 F.3d 611, 618 (4th Cir. 2001) for the proposition that in 
determining a motion to amend to join additional plaintiffs, a court 
must consider the requirements under both Rule 20(a)(1) and Rule 
15(a).  Within the Third Circuit, and particularly within this 
jurisdiction, Hinson is not controlling, and Rule 15(a) governs.  
See, e.g., Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229, 236 (3d Cir. 
2004)(“Amendments to pleadings are governed by Rule 15 of the Federal 
Rules of Civil Procedure.  In particular, Rule 15(a) provides that 
a party can amend the complaint to add or substitute parties . . . 
.”); Yeamans v. Snook, 15 V.I. 129, 134, 142 (D.V.I. 1979)(granting 
Case: 3:11-cv-00108-CVG-RM   Document #: 81   Filed: 06/26/12   Page 4 of 6
Cubica Group, LLLP v. MAPFRE Puerto Rican American Ins. Co., et al., 
Civil No. 2011-108 
Page 5 of 6 
 
 
plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint to add two new defendants 
pursuant to Rule 15(a)of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure).3  
Aside from the Rule 20(a) considerations, defendant only 
opposes plaintiff’s motion under Rule 15(a) on the basis that there 
was undue delay in its filing.  Defendant contends that plaintiff 
knew the reasons asserted in support of the motion to amend from 
before the inception of the action, and waited too long -- more than 
seven months after the action was filed – to move to amend.  It should 
be noted that delay alone, without more, is insufficient to deny a 
motion to amend. See Deakyne v. Commissioners of Lewis, 416 F.2d 209, 
300 n. 19 (3d Cir. 1969).  As indicated above, prejudice is the 
“touchstone” for the denial of a motion to amend.  Defendant does 
not state what prejudice, if any, it will suffer if the Court grants 
the motion.  Further, the Court does not discern any prejudice to 
MAPFRE either.   
                     
3 It is apparent that even if Rule 20(a)(1) were applicable, plaintiff would meet 
the requirements under this Rule to add Oceanside as a plaintiff.  Defendant 
contends that plaintiff’s “naked assertion,” without more, that Oceanside is an 
intended beneficiary under the Builder’s Risk policy is insufficient to meet the 
requirements of Rule 20(a)(1), and that to add Oceanside as a plaintiff “will entail 
the theoretical possibility that both entities will recover from MAPFRE.” 
(Opposition, ECF 61, at 6-7).   Plaintiff, however, has made more than a “naked 
assertion;”  plaintiff has submitted an endorsement to the policy that 
demonstrates that Oceanside, at the time Hurricane Earl struck St. Thomas, was 
a named insured under the policy.  Further, Cubica’s and Oceanside’s claims arise 
from MAPFRE’s alleged wrongful denial of Cubica’s claim under the Builder’s Risk 
policy, and they seek joint relief against MAPFRE for this alleged wrong.   
Finally, Cubica’s and Oceanside’s claims will present common questions of law and 
fact, as the claims are based on MAPFRE’s alleged wrongful denial of coverage under 
the policy. 
Case: 3:11-cv-00108-CVG-RM   Document #: 81   Filed: 06/26/12   Page 5 of 6
Cubica Group, LLLP v. MAPFRE Puerto Rican American Ins. Co., et al., 
Civil No. 2011-108 
Page 6 of 6 
 
 
D. Conclusion   
The premises considered, it is hereby  
ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED; it is further  
ORDERED that the complaint shall be referred to as the First 
Amended Complaint; and it is further  
ORDERED that plaintiff shall file the First Amended Complaint 
within five days of the date of this Order. 
 
S\____________________________ 
RUTH MILLER 
United States Magistrate Judge 
Case: 3:11-cv-00108-CVG-RM   Document #: 81   Filed: 06/26/12   Page 6 of 6