Paradigm Precision Holdings, LLC v. Prospect Manufacturing, LLC, et al.

Filing 91

ORDER Granting Paradigm and Smith West's motion to strike 75 . FURTHER ORDERED Granting dfts cross motion for leave to amend (doc. 82). FURTHER ORDERED Granting Paradigm's motion for leave to amend 84 . Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 12/2/08.(KMG)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Paradigm Precision Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,

) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) ) Prospect Manufacturing d/b/a Sonic ) Machine and Tool, LLC, an Arizona ) limited liability company; John Mohnach ) and Sharon Mohnach, husband and wife; ) Scott Mohnach and Jennifer Reiner, ) husband and wife, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Counterclaimant, ) ) vs. ) ) Paradigm Precision Holdings, LLC, a ) Delaware limited liability company and ) Smith West LLC, a Delaware limited ) liability company, ) ) Counterdefendants ) ) ) Prospect Manufacturing d/b/a Sonic Machine and Tool, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company,

No. 08-CV-00573-PHX-FJM ORDER

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The court has before it plaintiff/counterdefendant Paradigm Precision Holdings, LLC's ("Paradigm") and third-party defendant Smith West LLC's ("Smith West") motion to strike (doc. 75), defendants John Mohnach, Sharon Mohnach, Scott Mohnach, Jennifer Reiner and defendant/counterclaimant Prospect Manufacturing d/b/a Sonic Machine and Tool LLC's (collectively "defendants") response and cross motion for leave to amend and declaration of Peter Gallagher (docs. 82 & 83), and Paradigm and Smith West's reply (doc. 89). We also have before us Paradigm's motion for leave to amend and proposed amended complaint (docs. 84 & 85). Paradigm brings this action against defendants alleging several causes of action, most of which stem from agreements between defendants and Smith West. Defendants answered Paradigm's complaint and filed a counterclaim against both Paradigm and Smith West, which Paradigm answered (doc. 43). Instead of filing an answer, Smith West filed a motion to dismiss (doc. 45). We denied Smith West's motion (doc. 68) and Smith West answered the counterclaim on October 13, 2008 (doc. 74). On October 3, 2008, before Smith West had filed an answer, defendants filed a first amended answer and counterclaim, without leave of court, adding three affirmative defenses (doc. 71). Paradigm and Smith West move to strike defendants' first amended answer and counterclaim and defendants cross-move for leave to amend. Paradigm also moves for leave to amend its complaint. Defendants argue that their amended answer and counterclaim was properly filed as of right because Smith West had not yet answered their counterclaim. Rule 15 allows parties to amend a pleading without leave of court before a responsive pleading is served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A). In an action with multiple defendants, or in this case, counterdefendants, where some have filed a responsive pleading and others have not, a party may amend its pleading as a matter of course as to the non-answering defendants only. See Williams v. Board of Regents, 477 F.3d 1282, 1291 (11th Cir. 2007); Barksdale v. King, 699 F.2d 744, 747 (5th Cir. 1983). Therefore, defendants were only permitted to amend their counterclaim as to Smith West, the non-answering party, as a matter of course. Because defendants'

-2-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

amendments apply only to Paradigm as the plaintiff, the filing was not proper without leave of court. Defendants also move for leave to file their amended answer and counterclaim if we conclude it was not filed as of right. We grant the motion (doc. 82). We also will grant Paradigm's motion for leave to amend to ensure final resolution of all disputes without delay or prejudice to defendants. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 83 S. Ct. 227 (1962). Defendants will have an opportunity to answer Paradigm's amended complaint and may add their affirmative defenses at that time. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED GRANTING Paradigm and Smith West's motion to strike (doc. 75). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING defendants' cross motion for leave to amend (doc. 82). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING Paradigm's motion for leave to amend (doc. 84). We encourage the parties to cooperate with each other over matters as trivial as those raised by these motions. It is a waste of the clients' money and the court's time to deal with matters so inconsequential. See Rule 1, Fed. R. Civ. P. DATED this 2nd day of December, 2008.

-3-