Disney v. Kenworth

Filing 28

ORDER regarding Plaintiff's 21 Motion to Amend the Complaint; and 26 Motion, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 8/8/2012. (Kusamura, W)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
THERESA DISNEY,
11
12
13
14
15

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
KENWORTH and DOES 1 through 50,
)
inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________________ )

1:12-cv-00484 AWI GSA
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND
EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE
(Docket Entry Nos. 21 & 26)

16
17
18

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

19

Following removal from state court in March 2012, this case was set for an Initial

20

Scheduling Conference on May 31, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom # 10 of this Court. (See

21

Doc. 5.)

22

On April 4, 2012, Defendant Paccar, Inc., erroneously sued as Kenworth, filed a Motion

23

to Dismiss. (Doc. 10.) No other named defendants had been served with the summons or

24

complaint.

25
26

On April 25, 2012, Plaintiff Theresa Disney filed a First Amended Complaint alleging
strict liability and negligence causes of action. No new defendants were named in the amended

27
28

1

1
2

complaint. (Doc. 12.) The following day, Defendant withdrew its motion. (See Doc. 13.)
On May 14, 2012, Defendant filed a second Motion to Dismiss, seeking relief in the form

3

of a dismissal of Plaintiff’s amended complaint. The motion was to be heard before District

4

Judge Anthony W. Ishii on June 18, 2012. (Doc. 14.)

5

On June 6, 2012, Plaintiff submitted a Request for Dismissal of Defendant Kenworth

6

only, without prejudice. On June 7, 2012, Judge Ishii ordered that Defendant Kenworth be

7

dismissed from the action. (Doc. 19.)

8
9
10

On July 18, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint. As no defendants have
appeared, no opposition was filed. That matter was set to be heard August 10, 2012. (Doc. 21.)
For the reasons given below, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion.

11

DISCUSSION

12

Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff may amend his

13

complaint once “as a matter of course,” and without leave of court, before a response has been

14

filed. Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995). However, a party can only amend

15

the pleading with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave once a responsive

16

pleading has been filed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Here, Plaintiff filed a First Amended

17

Complaint on May 14, 2012, thus, leave of Court is required. (Doc. 14.)

18

Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in relevant part:

19

Other Amendments. In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading
only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court
should freely give leave when justice so requires.

20
21
22
23
24
25

The United States Supreme Court has stated that
[i]n the absence of any apparent or declared reason – such as undue delay, bad
faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure
deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing
party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc. – the
leave sought should, as the rules require, be “freely given.”
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).

26
27
28

2

1

This policy is “to be applied with extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon,

2

Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). The Ninth Circuit has summarized

3

the factors to be considered by the court to include: (1) undue delay; (2) bad faith; (3) prejudice

4

to the opponent; and (4) futility of amendment. Loehr v. Ventura County Cmty. Coll. Dist., 743

5

F.2d 1310, 1319 (9th Cir. 1984). However, not all of these factors merit equal weight. Eminence

6

Capital, LLC, v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d at 1052. It is the consideration of prejudice that carries

7

the greatest weight. Id. Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of the remaining factors, there is a

8

presumption in favor of granting leave to amend. Id.

9

The Court has examined all of the factors listed above. Plaintiff’s amendments appear

10

reasonable and seek to name the proper defendant. Plaintiff seeks to add Capacity of Texas, Inc.

11

as a proper defendant on the basis that they are the manufacturer of the truck which caused

12

Plaintiff’s injuries. There is no indication that this amendment will cause undue delay or that it

13

will cause prejudice to Defendants. Similarly, there is nothing to suggest that the amendment

14

was made in bad faith. Therefore, leave to amend will be granted.

15

Further, once the Second Amended Complaint is filed, Plaintiff is entitled to an

16

additional 120 days to effect service of process. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); see City of Merced v.

17

Fields, 997 F.Supp. 1326, 1337-39 (E.D. Cal. 1998); see also, Del Raine v. Carlson, 153 F.R.D.

18

622, 628 (S.D. Ill. 1994) (the addition of new parties in an amended complaint initiates a new

19

120-day timetable as to the added parties).

20

//

21

//

22

//

23

//

24

//

25

//

26

//

27
28

3

1

CONCLUSION

2

Accordingly, for the above reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion

3

for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is

4

directed to file the Second Amended Complaint. Because the Court has granted Plaintiff’s

5

motion, it will not address Plaintiff’s alternative argument. Finally, Plaintiff’s request filed

6

August 3, 2012 (Doc. 26) is rendered moot by this Order.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

Dated:
6i0kij

August 8, 2012

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4