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)

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-