Renova et al v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Filing 22

ORDER granting 16 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 17 Motion to Stay. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 8/23/2011.(NVO)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance) ) Company, an Illinois corporation ) ) Defendant. ) Emilio Renova, No. CV11-0566 PHX DGC ORDER 15 16 Plaintiffs move to amend the complaint so as to clarify that this is a contract action 17 rather than a wrongful death action under A.R.S. § 12-612. Doc. 16. The request is timely 18 under the case management order entered in this case. Doc. 12. Defendant opposes on the 19 ground that the amended complaint lacks the proper plaintiffs for wrongful death actions 20 under A.R.S. § 12-612. Doc. 18. Because the amended complaint alleges this is a contract 21 action rather than a wrongful death action, the argument is inapposite. Defendant also 22 suggests the amended complaint fails because it does not name as plaintiffs all parties who 23 may seek relief from Defendant arising from the same transaction, citing Rule 19(a)(1)(A) 24 for support. Doc. 18 at 4. Defendant fails to cite law for the proposition that Rule 19 25 requires compulsive joinder when not all plaintiffs in a contract action against an insurance 26 company join the suit – or that the proper remedy is to deny amendment. The motion to 27 amend is granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2); Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); 28 Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 880 (9th Cir. 2001). 1 Plaintiffs also move for a stay of this case pending decision by the Arizona Court of 2 Appeals in a related matter. Doc. 17. Plaintiffs provide no information about the briefing 3 or argument status of the case before the Court of Appeals, nor any expected date for 4 decision. The Court also notes that Plaintiffs were aware of the Court of Appeals case when 5 their Rule 26(f) report was filed, and nonetheless proposed the schedule adopted by the Court 6 in its Case Management Order. See Docs. 10, 12. The request for a stay will be denied. 7 IT IS ORDERED: 8 1. Plaintiffs’ motion to amend (Doc. 16) is granted. 9 2. Plaintiffs’ motion to stay (Doc. 17) is denied. 10 DATED this 23rd day of August, 2011. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -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?