Greene v. Alan Waxler Group Charter Services, LLC

Filing 163

ORDER Granting 145 Motion to Amend/Correct 29 Answer to Complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants file an amended answer identical to that attached as exhibit 1 to the motion to amend (doc. # 145 , ex. 1) within 14 days of the entry of this order. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 02/28/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
ROBERT GREENE,

7
8

2:09-CV-748 JCM (NJK)

Plaintiff,

9

v.

10

ALAN WAXLER GROUP CHARTER
SERVICES, LLC dba AWG CHARTER
SERVICES, et al.,

11
12

Defendants.

13
14
15

ORDER

16

Presently before the court is defendants Alan Waxler Group Charter Services, LLC, Alan

17

Waxler Group, LLC, Alan Waxler Group, Inc., AWG Corporate Events, LLC, and Alan Waxler’s

18

motion to amend their answer to plaintiffs’ complaint. (Doc. # 145). Plaintiffs filed a response in

19

opposition (doc. # 147), and defendants filed a reply (doc. # 148).

20

I.

Discussion

21

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that leave to amend “shall be freely given

22

when justice so requires.” The Supreme Court has interpreted Rule 15(a) and confirmed the liberal

23

standard district courts must apply when granting such leave. In Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178

24

(1962), the Court explained: “In the absence of any apparent or declared reason – such as undue

25

delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by

26

amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the

27

amendment, futility of the amendment, etc. – the leave sought should, as the rules require, be ‘freely

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

given.’” Id. at 182. The local rules of federal practice in the District of Nevada require that a party

2

submit a proposed, amended pleading along with a motion to amend. LR 15-1(a).

3

Rule 16(b) provides that “[a] schedule shall not be modified except upon a showing of good

4

cause and by leave of the district judge.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). See Johnson v. Mammoth

5

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992). If the moving party demonstrates good cause

6

under Rule 16(b), then it must then establish that the proposed amendment is permissible under the

7

factors germane to Rule 15. Id. “[T]he existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the

8

modification” may supply “additional reasons to deny” a request for leave to amend, but “the focus

9

of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reason for seeking modification. If that party was not

10

diligent, the inquiry should end.” Id.

11

Defendants seek leave of the court to file an amended answer that would include affirmative

12

defenses under the Motor Carrier Act and taxicab exemptions under federal law, the limousine and

13

taxi driver exemption under Nevada law, and principles of good faith. Defendants have attached their

14

proposed, amended answer to this motion in compliance with LR 15-1(a).

15

A review of the record indicates that from the very beginning of this litigation, plaintiffs

16

anticipated these very affirmative defenses being raised against them and preemptively refuted each

17

in their initial complaint. (Doc. # 1). Additionally, many of these defenses have been discussed at

18

length in regard to a motion for judgment on the pleadings and a motion for summary judgment.

19

(Docs. ## 31 & 70).

20

Therefore, in consideration of the liberal Rule 15(a) standard, the court finds that defendants’

21

motion to amend their answer has not been made in bad faith, will not cause undue delay or

22

prejudice to plaintiffs, and presents cognizable legal arguments. Additionally, the court finds there

23

is good cause to allow defendants to amend their answer.

24

II.

Conclusion

25

Accordingly,

26

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that defendants’ motion to

27

amend (doc. # 145) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants file an amended answer identical to that

2

attached as exhibit 1 to the motion to amend (doc. # 145, ex. 1) within fourteen (14) days of the entry

3

of this order.

4

DATED February 28, 2014.

5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-3-