Goodman v. Commonwealth Financial Systems, Inc.

Filing 11

ORDER that 9 Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff is directed to file his supplemental complaint no later than February 25, 2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 2/18/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
MARK R. GOODMAN,

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL SYSTEMS
)
INC., a/k/a Northeast Credit and
)
Collections,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:13-cv-00726-GMN-CWH
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s unopposed First Motion for Leave to File a
Supplemental Complaint (doc. # 9), filed January 21, 2015.

16

Under Rule 15(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may, on reasonable notice

17

and just terms, “permit a party to serve a supplemental pleading setting out any transaction,

18

occurrence, or event that happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented.” Fed.R.Civ.P.

19

15(d). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has held that Rule 15(d) “provides a mechanism for parties to file

20

additional causes of action based on facts that didn’t exist when the original complaint was filed.” Eid

21

v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 621 F.3d 858, 874 (9th Cir. 2010). “While some relationship must exist

22

between the newly alleged matters and the subject of the original action, they need not all arise out of

23

the same transaction.” Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467, 474 (9th Cir. 1988). Nevertheless, the

24

supplemental pleading cannot be used to introduce separate, distinct, and new causes of action.

25

Planned Parenthood of S. Ariz. v. Neely, 130 F.3d 400, 402 (9th Cir. 1997). Courts have broad

26

discretion to allow supplemental complaints under Rule 15(d), and may consider factors such as

27

judicial efficiency, the assertion of new causes of action, and prejudice to a defendant in making these

28

determinations. Keith, 858 F.2d at 473-75.

1

Rule 15(d) does not expressly state if and under what circumstances supplemental pleadings

2

relate back to the original pleading for statute of limitations purposes. However, courts often apply

3

“relation back” principles under Rule 15(c) to supplemental complaints. See United States v. CMA,

4

Inc., 890 F.2d 1070, 1073-74 (9th Cir. 1989). Moreover, when a supplemental complaint “raises

5

claims unrelated to the allegations in the original complaint, or relies on conduct or events different

6

from those pleaded in the original complaint, there is no relation back.” William Inglis & Sons Baking

7

Co. v. ITT Cont’l Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014, 1057 (9th Cir. 1982).

8

The Court finds no statute of limitations issue that would preclude Plaintiff from supplementing

9

his complaint. Thus, the Court must now decide whether some relationship exists between those facts

10

already asserted in Plaintiff’s original complaint, and those newly alleged facts in Plaintiff’s proposed

11

supplemental complaint. In the instant motion, Plaintiff seeks to add facts of Defendant’s “continued

12

...harass[ment]” of Plaintiff by way of phone calls Defendant purportedly made to Plaintiff from April

13

to July 2013. Doc. # 9 at 2; Doc. # 10 at 14-16. This Court finds that a sufficient relationship exists

14

between those facts asserted in the original complaint, and those newly alleged facts in Plaintiff’s

15

proposed supplemental complaint. This Court also finds that Plaintiff’s newly alleged facts are related

16

to his existing claims regarding Defendant’s purportedly abusive and unlawful debt collection

17

practices.

18

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s unopposed First Motion for Leave

19

to File a Supplemental Complaint (doc. # 9) is granted. Plaintiff is directed to file his supplemental

20

complaint no later than February 25, 2015.

21

DATED: February 18, 2015

22
23
24

______________________________________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

25
26
27
28
2