Hoyt et al v. Aerus Holdings LLC et al

Filing 56

ORDER denying 46 Plaintiffs' Motion for leave to amend complaint.Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 08/23/12.(JAMA)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Edward Hoyt; James Gabriel,
Plaintiffs,

10
11

vs.

12
Michael J. Jackson,
13
Defendant.
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 11-02184-PHX-FJM
ORDER

15
16

Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend complaint on July 13, 2012 (doc. 46).

17

They seek to assert additional claims against the only remaining defendant, Michael J.

18

Jackson. They also seek to add defendant's wife, Nata Jackson, as a defendant. On July 26,

19

2012, Michael filed for bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern

20

District of Tennessee. The court stayed all claims against him on August 1, 2012 (doc. 55).

21

No response to the motion for leave to amend complaint was filed.

22

Plaintiffs first filed this action in November 2009 in the Superior Court of Arizona in

23

Maricopa County. Defendants removed to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the

24

District of Arizona in December 2010. All claims against defendants other than the Jacksons

25

were transferred to the Bankruptcy Court in Tennessee on March 10, 2011, and plaintiffs'

26

remaining claims based on a personal guaranty signed by Michael were remanded. Plaintiffs

27

then added Nata as a defendant, she removed, and this court dismissed her for lack of

28

personal jurisdiction (doc. 17). Plaintiffs filed this motion for leave to amend on July 13,

1

2012, the deadline for amending the complaint set by the court's Rule 16 scheduling order

2

(doc. 37).

3

The plaintiffs' 76-page proposed fourth amended complaint confusingly lists 40 causes

4

of action against 8 defendants besides the Jacksons, despite the fact that plaintiffs state in

5

their motion that they seek only to add Nata as a defendant. The court may properly dismiss

6

a complaint that is "prolix" and "largely irrelevant." McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177

7

(9th Cir. 1996). The proposed complaint is unworkable and fails to meet the standards of

8

Rule 8(a), Fed. R. Civ. P.

9

In addition, claims cannot be added against Michael as a result of the bankruptcy stay,

10

which prohibits the "continuation" of a judicial action against a debtor "that was or could

11

have been commenced before the commencement of the [bankruptcy] case." 11 U.S.C. §

12

362(a)(1).
IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend complaint (doc.

13
14
15

46).
DATED this 23rd day of August, 2012.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-