Groce v. Claudat

Filing 106

ORDER Granting 67 Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 9/16/2012. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rlu)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARK GLEN GROCE,

Case No. 09cv01630 BTM (WMc)
Plaintiff,

12

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO
FILE SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT

v.
13
14
15

THEODORE BERNARD CLAUDAT,
d/b/a QUALITY INSTANT PRINTING,
Defendant.

16
17

On January 31, 2012, Plaintiff filed the present motion for leave to file a second

18

amended complaint (Doc. 67), attaching as an exhibit a proposed second amended

19

complaint (Doc. 67-1). The proposed second amended complaint differs substantively from

20

the First Amended Complaint only insofar as it seeks to add Quality Instant Printing, Inc., and

21

DOES 1-X as defendants in this action.

22

Rule 20(a)(2) permits joinder of additional defendants. Rule 20 “is to be construed

23

liberally in order to promote trial convenience and to expedite the final determination of

24

disputes, thereby preventing multiple lawsuits.” League to Save Lake Tahoe v. Tahoe Reg’l

25

Planning Agency, 558 F.2d 914, 917 (9th Cir. 1977). The Court finds that Quality Instant

26

Printing, Inc. is an appropriate party to join as a defendant.

27

Once the requirements of Rule 20 are met, “a district court must examine whether

28

permissive joinder would comport with the principles of fundamental fairness or would result
1

09cv01630 BTM (WMc)

1

in prejudice to either side.” Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1296 (9th Cir.

2

2000). Defendant asserts prejudice on the ground that if Plaintiff’s motion is granted,

3

Defendant will be deprived sufficient opportunity “to request discovery in relation to the

4

corporation.” (Opp. Br., Doc. 73, at 3.) It would seem that any documents relevant to the

5

corporation would already be in the possession of Defendant, who is listed as the agent for

6

service of process for Quality Instant Printing, Inc. in the “Business Entity Detail” attached

7

to Defendant’s response. See Doc. 73-2. However, to the extent Defendant maintains that

8

he is prejudiced, he may move to request the reopening of discovery.

9

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 67) and

10

ORDERS that the Clerk shall file as the Second Amended Complaint the proposed second

11

amended complaint attached to Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 67-1).

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated: September 16, 2012

15

HONORABLE BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

09cv01630 BTM (WMc)