Franchise Holding II LLC v. Huntington Restaurants Group Incorporated et al

Filing 42

ORDER granting 33 Motion to Amend/Correct. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint on or before 2/20/2013. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 2/13/2013.(NVO)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Franchise Holding II, LLC,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-12-01363-PHX-DGC

Huntington Restaurants Group, Inc, et al.,
Defendants.

13
14

Plaintiff Franchise Holding II, LLC moves to amend its complaint pursuant to

15

Rule 15(a). Doc. 33. Defendants filed a response opposing the proposed amendment

16

(Doc. 34) and Plaintiff filed a reply (Doc. 35). For the reasons that follow the Court will

17

grant the motion.

18

Rule 15(a) provides that leave to amend “shall be freely given when justice so

19

requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The Ninth Circuit has explained that it is an abuse of

20

discretion to deny a motion to amend when “there is a lack of prejudice to the opposing

21

party and the amended complaint is obviously not frivolous, or made as a dilatory

22

maneuver of bad faith[.]” Howey v. United States, 481 F.2d 1187, 1190-91 (9th Cir.

23

1973). Plaintiff filed its motion to amend within the deadline set in the October 31, 2012

24

Case Management Order. Doc. 27. It seeks to add facts alleging additional breaches of

25

the contract that is already at issue in this case. Doc. 33 at 3. These claims are not

26

frivolous.

27

Defendants make two arguments. First, they repeat an argument from their motion

28

to dismiss that Plaintiff claims excessive damages. This argument is irrelevant to the

1

question of whether leave to amend should be granted (in fact, the damages portion of the

2

complaint remains unchanged). Second, Defendants argue that because a fee award is

3

sometimes available in breach of contract claims under Arizona law, they have been

4

prejudiced by the additional fees generated investigating these “tangential” claims and

5

drafting a motion and a new complaint. Doc. 34 at 3-4; see A.R.S. § 12-341.01. Any

6

increase in a potential fee award that is the result of investigating a non-frivolous claim is

7

not unduly prejudicial, and Defendants will be required to pay Plaintiff’s fees only if

8

Plaintiff prevails. Additionally, the costs of drafting a motion to amend could have been

9

avoided had Defendants stipulated to the proposed amendments.

10
11
12

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend (Doc. 33) is granted.
Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint on or before February 20, 2013.
Dated this 13th day of February, 2013.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-