Bryans v. Nationwide Credit, Inc.

Filing 12

ORDER granting 11 Motion to Amend/Correct. The Rule 16 Case Management Conference currently set for August 14, 2010 is postponed and will be rescheduled when the newly named Defendant has appeared. Plaintiff should notify the Court when the Defendant has answered or otherwise responded to the amended complaint.Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 7/14/10.(DMT)

Download PDF
Bryans v. Nationwide Credit, Inc. Doc. 12 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 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Andrew Bryans, Plaintiff, vs. Nationwide Credit Corporation, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV10-0928 PHX DGC ORDER On April 27, 2010, Plaintiff Andrew Bryans filed a complaint against Defendant Nationwide Credit, Inc. Dkt. #1. On June 4, 2010, Plaintiff filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice of his complaint against Nationwide Credit, Inc. because "he named the wrong Defendant." Dkt. ##10, 11 at 2. On June 14, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint to name the proper Defendant. Dkt. #11. Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure declares that courts should "freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The Supreme Court has instructed that "this mandate is to be heeded." Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). In deciding this motion, the Court "`must be guided by the underlying purpose of Rule 15 to facilitate decision on the merits rather than on the pleadings or technicalities.'" Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1135 (9th Cir. 1987) (citation omitted). "Thus, `Rule 15's policy of favoring amendments to pleadings should be applied with extreme liberality.'" Id. This liberality "is not dependent on whether the amendment will add causes of action or parties." DCD Programs, LTD. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987). Dockets.Justia.com 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 may deny a motion to amend if there is a showing of undue delay or bad faith on the part of the moving party, undue prejudice to the opposing party, or futility of the proposed amendment. See Foman, 371 U.S. at 182. Generally, however, "this determination should be performed with all inferences in favor of granting the motion." Griggs v. Pace Am. Group, Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999). The Court does not find undue delay or bad faith on Plaintiff's part, nor does the Court find undue prejudice or futility. As a result, the Court will grant the motion to amend. IT IS ORDERED: 1. 2. Plaintiff's motion to amend (Dkt. #11) is granted. The Rule 16 Case Management Conference currently set for August 14, 2010 is postponed and will be rescheduled when the newly named Defendant has appeared. Plaintiff should notify the Court when the Defendant has answered or otherwise responded to the amended complaint. DATED this 14th day of July, 2010. -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?