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)
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?