Anahuac Management v. Mazer et al

Filing 60

ORDER Granting 54 Motion to Strike 53 Motion for Leave to Amend. Signed by Judge Roger L. Hunt on 12/7/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
AO 72
(Rev. 8/82)

)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
KEITH A. MAZER, an individual; WORLD
)
CAPITAL FUNDING, LLC, an entity of
unknown provenance; and DOES 1 through 50, )
)
inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
_______________________________________)
)
KEITH A. MAZER,
)
Counterclaim Plaintiff, )
)
)
vs.
)
ANAHUAC MANAGEMENT,
)
)
Counterclaim Defendant. )
_______________________________________)
KEITH A. MAZER,
)
)
)
Third-party Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
)
JEHU HAND,
)
Third-party Defendant. )
_______________________________________)
ANAHUAC MANAGEMENT, a Nevada
corporation,

1

Case No.: 2:09-cv-01590-RLH-PAL
ORDER
(Motion to Strike–#54;
Motion for Leave to Amend–#53)

1

Before the Court is Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant Anahuac Managment and

2

Third-party Defendant Jehu Hand’s Motion to Strike Keith A. Mazer’s Motion for Leave to

3

File Amended Counterclaims and Third-party Claims (#54, filed July 14, 2011). The Court

4

has also considered Defendant/Counterclaimant/Third-party Plaintiff Keith A. Mazer’s Opposition

5

(#56, filed July 29), and Anahuac and Hand’s Reply (#57, filed Aug. 8).

6

Also before the Court is Mazer’s Motion for Leave to File Amended

7

Counterclaims and Third-party Claims (#53, filed July 14, 2011). Anahuac and Hand did not

8

respond directly to the motion, but rather filed their motion to strike.

9

The Court need not explicate the facts of this case as they are of extremely limited

10

value to the resolution of this motion. However, the Court directs the reader to its prior Order

11

(#38) and Magistrate Judge Leen’s more recent Order (#59) for the background of this case.

12

Here, the Court grants Anahuac and Hand’s motion to strike because Mazer’s

13

motion to amend his answer comes many months after the deadline set for such motions in the

14

Scheduling Order (#35) Judge Leen issued in this case. See U.S. Dominator, Inc. v. Factory Ship

15

Robert E. Resoff, 768 F.2d 1099, 1104 (9th Cir. 1985) (superseded by statute on other grounds);

16

see also Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610-11 (9th Cir. 1992). If not for

17

the motion to strike, the Court would simply have denied the motion on that ground. Additionally,

18

Mazer’s motion fails to seek amendment of the scheduling order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

19

Procedure 16 as would be proper prior to the Court considering a motion for leave to amend.1

20

Mazer only argues that amendment should be allowed under Rule 15, the wrong (or at least

21

incomplete) standard and only makes arguments related to that liberal standard rather than Rule

22

16’s more strict “good cause” standard.

23
24
25
26
AO 72
(Rev. 8/82)

1

The Court notes that it has the discretion to treat a motion for leave to amend as also being a motion
to amend the scheduling order, however, it chooses not to do so here. Mazer also could have included a request
to amend the scheduling order in his motion, but chose not to.

2

1

CONCLUSION

2

Accordingly, and for good cause appearing,

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Anahuac and Hand’s Motion to Strike (#54) is

4

GRANTED.

5
6
7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mazer’s Motion (#53) be STRICKEN from the
record.
Dated: December 7, 2011.

8
9

____________________________________
ROGER L. HUNT
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
AO 72
(Rev. 8/82)

3