Peterson et al v. Miranda et al

Filing 171

ORDER Granting 112 Motion to Amend Complaint. Denying without prejudice 102 and 104 Motions to Dismiss. Amended Complaint due within 10 days. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 6/4/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

LINDA PETERSON; et. al,

10

Plaintiffs,

11

v.

12

KEVIN MIRANDA; et. al,

13

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:11-cv-01919-LRH-RJJ
ORDER

14
15

Before the court is plaintiffs Linda and Francis Peterson’s (“the Petersons”) motion for leave

16

to file an amended complaint. Doc. #112.1

17

I.

18

Facts and Procedural History
On November 28, 2009, Rebecca Wamsley, a dispatcher for the Clark County School

19

District Police Department, held a holiday party at her home and invited members of the

20

department. One of the attendees, Kevin Miranda (“Miranda”), was the eighteen year old boyfriend

21

of CCSD Police dispatcher defendant Zuniga, also in attendance. During the party, Miranda had

22

access to alcoholic beverages and became intoxicated. He then left the party, ran a red light, and

23

crashed his parents’ truck into a vehicle driven by Angela Peterson, the Petersons’ daughter, killing

24

her.

25
26

1

Refers to the court’s docket entry number.

1

On October 20, 2011, the Petersons filed the underlying action against all defendants.

2

Doc. #1, Exhibit 1. On October 18, 2012, the Petersons filed an amended complaint. Doc. #94. In

3

response, defendants filed a series of motions to dismiss. Doc. ##102, 104. Thereafter, the Petersons

4

filed the present motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. Doc. #112.

5

II.

6

Discussion
A party may amend its pleadings after a responsive pleading has been filed by leave of court.

7

FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2). Leave of court to amend should be freely given when justice so requires

8

and when there is no undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive on the part of the moving party. See

9

Wright v. Incline Village General Imp. Dist., 597 F.Supp.2d 1191 (D. Nev. 2009); DCD Programs,

10

LTD v. Leighton, 883 F.2d 183 (9th Cir. 1987).

11

Here, the Petersons request leave to amend their complaint to add new allegations to their

12

intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, as well as add additional claims for punitive

13

damages. See Doc. #112. A copy of the proposed amended complaint is attached to the motion in

14

accordance with LR 15-1. Doc. #112, Exhibit 1.

15

The court finds that there is no undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive on behalf of the

16

Petersons in requesting leave to amend their complaint. The court has also reviewed the proposed

17

amended complaint and finds that it satisfies the pleading defects raised in the motions to dismiss.

18

Further, the court finds that the matter is still early in litigation and that the defendants would not be

19

prejudiced by allowing amendment. Accordingly, the court shall grant the Petersons’ motion for

20

leave to file an amended complaint.

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

2

1

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend (Doc. #112) is

2

GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall have ten (10) days after entry of this order to file the amended

3

complaint attached as Exhibit 1 to their motion (Doc. #112).

4
5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ motions to dismiss (Doc. ##102, 104) are
DENIED without prejudice.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

DATED this 4th day of June, 2013.

8
9

__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

3