De La Torre et al v. Swift Transportation Company et al

Filing 28

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 11/13/13 GRANTING 17 Motion to Amend the Complaint. Plaintiffs have 5 days leave from the date on which this Order is filed to file the Third Amended Complaint attached to their motion. (Meuleman, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 JUAN JACOB DE LA TORRE and ZALEEYA DE LA TORRE, individually and as decedent Juan De La Torre’s successors in interest, minors by and through Guardian Ad Litem, VIVICA GONZALEZ; VIVICA GONZALEZ, an individual, and GRACIELA ARELLANO, an individual, 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS LEAVE TO FILE A THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:13-cv-01786-GEB-DAD v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, a publicly traded Delaware corporation; SWIFT TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; INTERSTATE EQUIPMENT LEASING, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; EDWARD GREER, JR., an individual; SWIFT LEASING CO., LLC (DOE NO. 1); FIERRO TRUCKING II, LLC (DOE NO. 2), and DOES 3 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. Plaintiffs seek leave under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 15(a)(2), inter alia, to file and serve the Third Amended Complaint attached to their motion. Specifically, 28 1 1 Plaintiffs seek to “add Jose Angel Martinez as a Defendant in 2 this 3 relationship between the parties.” (Pls.’ Mot. to Amend Second 4 Am. Compl. 2:13-16, ECF No. 17.) Plaintiffs assert Mr. Martinez 5 “is the owner, operator, and/or sole member of Defendant Fierro 6 Trucking II, LLC,” which is already a party in this action. (Id. 7 3:7-9.) Plaintiffs also argue that Mr. Martinez had supervisory 8 responsibility over the operator of the tractor-trailer involved 9 in the collision that caused Plaintiffs’ damages. (Id. 3:9-10.) matter, 10 and . . . additional allegations regarding the Defendants oppose the motion with conclusory arguments, 11 contending that Plaintiffs 12 because they “have known about [Mr. Martinez] since the outset of 13 the litigation,” and the amendment sought is “futile” because 14 “Fierro 15 Martinez owns, “is already a named defendant in this action.” 16 (Defs.’ Opp’n to Mot. for Leave to Amend 3:11-12, 3:16-17 ECF No. 17 22.) Trucking II, LLC,” unduly the delayed company seeking amendment Plaintiffs argue Mr. 18 Rule 15(a)(2) prescribes: “[t]he court should freely 19 grant leave [to amend a pleading] when justice so requires.” 20 “This 21 liberality.” 22 Dist., 23 Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 24 2003)). 25 determining whether to deny a motion to amend: ‘bad faith, undue 26 delay, 27 amendment.’” In re Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd., 642 F.3d 685, 701 28 (9th Cir. 1994)(quoting and citing Kaplan v. Rose, 49 F.3d 1363, [amendment] 654 C.F. F.3d “District prejudice policy is ex rel. 975, 985 courts to the to be Farnan (9th v. Cir. generally opposing 2 applied with Capistrano 2011) consider party, and Unified (quoting four the extreme Sch. Eminence factors futility in of 1 1370 (9th Cir. 1994)). “Courts may decline to grant leave to 2 amend only if there is strong evidence of ‘undue delay, bad faith 3 or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to 4 cure 5 prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the 6 amendment, [or] futility of amendment, etc.’” Sonoma County Ass'n 7 of Retired Employees v. Sonoma County, 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th 8 Cir. 2013)(citing and quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 9 (1962)). Defendants’ conclusory arguments regarding undue delay 10 and futility are devoid of evidence sufficient to justify denying 11 Plaintiffs’ motion. 12 deficiencies Therefore, by amendments Plaintiffs’ previously motion is allowed, GRANTED, undue and 13 Plaintiffs have five (5) days leave from the date on which this 14 Order is filed to file the Third Amended Complaint attached to 15 their motion. 16 Dated: November 13, 2013 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?