Pontikis v. Lucid USA Incorporated

Filing 73

ORDER granting Lucid's Motion to Strike (Doc 48 ), but AUTHORIZING Plaintiff to seek to amend his complaint to contain the minimal additions included in his Second Amended Complaint that have not been authorized by the Court. IT IS ORDERED DENY NG Pontikis's Motion for Entry of Default (Doc. 49 ), Proposed Motion for Sanctions and Motion for Sanctions (Docs 50 and 60 ), and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 67 ), but GRANTING to Defendants their reasonable attorney's fees incurred in defending against the Motion for Sanctions upon their compliance with LRCiv 54.2. IT IS ORDERED DENYING Lucid's Motion to Strike (Doc. 68 ) as moot. Signed by Chief Judge G Murray Snow on 5/10/2024. (KJ)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Stefanos Pontikis,
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

Lucid USA Incorporated,

13

Defendant.

No. CV-22-02061-PHX-GMS
ORDER

14
15
16

Pending before the Court are: (1) Defendant Lucid USA, Inc.’s Motion to Strike

17

Allegations in the Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 48); (2) Plaintiff Pontikis’ s (Motion)

18

Application and Request for Entry of Default and Motion for Default Judgment Against

19

Defendant Lucid Motors USA, Inc. (Doc. 49); (3) Plaintiff Pontikis’s Proposed Motion for

20

Sanctions Under Rule 11 (Doc. 50); (4) Plaintiff Pontikis’s Motion for Sanctions Fed. R.

21

Civ. P. 11 (Doc. 60); (5) Plaintiff Pontikis’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc.

22

67) and (6) Defendant Lucid’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the

23

Pleadings (Doc. 68).

24

IT IS ORDERED that the Motions are decided as follows:

25

1. Lucid USA’s Motion to Strike (Doc. 48)

26

On September 19, 2023, this Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Second Amended

27

Complaint because Plaintiff had not obtained leave to file it. The Court also granted

28

Plaintiff’s Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, and dismissed

1

Count Three of that First Amended Complaint. The Court gave Plaintiff thirty days in

2

which to amend Count Three of his First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 42 at 7). The next

3

day Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint. That Complaint deleted Count Three,

4

but it also made a demand for jury trial and indicated that Pontikis is alleging that he was

5

constructively discharged. Lucid filed a motion to strike these additions. Lucid is correct

6

on the law. The Court did not authorize Plaintiff to do more than amend his Third Amended

7

Complaint. While not textually extensive, the amendments in addition to the deletion of

8

Count Three require the filing of a leave to amend. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2); LRCiv.

9

7.2(m)(1); Chandler v. Brennan, No. CV-20-00924-PHX-DWL, 2021 WL 4503423,at *3

10

(D. Ariz. Oct. 1, 2021), Liza v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co., 714 F. App’x 620, 622 (9th

11

Cir. 2017). And, Defendant would have had no basis to move to strike these amendments

12

to Plaintiff’s complaint before the unauthorized attempted amendments were made.

13

Therefore, Lucid’s Motion to Strike (Doc. 48) is granted.

14

Nevertheless , since this Court is obliged to “indulge every presumption against

15

waiver,” of the right to trial by jury, Solis v. County of Los Angeles, 514 F.3d 946, 953 (9th

16

Cir. 2008) quoting Pradier v. Elespuru, 641 F.2d 808, 811 (9th Cir. 1981), Pontikis is

17

authorized to file a motion seeking to amend his complaint to include the brief amendments

18

set forth in his Second Amended complaint that were not authorized by this Court in its

19

September 19, 2023 Order.

20

2. Pontikis’s Motion for Entry of Default (Doc 49)

21

Because Defendant’s Motion to Strike is “otherwise defending” against Plaintiff’s

22

Complaint, Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a), Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default (Doc. 49) is

23

without merit and is denied.

24
25

3. Pontikis’s Proposed Motion for Sanctions and Motion for Sanctions (Docs.
50 and 60)

26

Defendant’s Motion to Strike (Doc. 49) was merited and granted in this order, and

27

therefore is not sanctionable. Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions is denied. The Court finds

28

that an award of reasonable attorney’s fees to Defendant in defending against the sanctions

-2-

1

motion is authorized pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2). Reasonable fees shall be awarded

2

upon Defense Counsel’s compliance with LRCiv. 54.2

3

4. Pontikis’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 67) is dismissed, and

4

Lucid’s Motion to Strike Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 68)

5

is denied as moot.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 67) is without merit and is

6
7

dismissed. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (Doc. 68) is denied as moot.

8

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

9

GRANTING Lucid’s Motion to Strike (Doc 48), but AUTHORIZING Plaintiff to

10

seek to amend his complaint to contain the minimal additions included in his Second

11

Amended Complaint that have not been authorized by the Court.

12

DENYNG Pontikis’s Motion for Entry of Default (Doc. 49), Proposed Motion for

13

Sanctions and Motion for Sanctions (Docs 50 and 60), and Motion for Judgment on the

14

Pleadings (Doc. 67), but GRANT|ING to Defendants their reasonable attorney’s fees

15

incurred in defending against the Motion for Sanctions upon their compliance with LRCiv

16

54.2.

17

DENYING Lucid’s Motion to Strike (Doc. 68) as moot.

18

Dated this 10th day of May, 2024.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-