Cheek et al v. Garrett et al
Filing
123
MEMORANDUM DECISION granting 104 Motion for Extension of Time to Amend; denying 105 Motion to Dismiss; denying 108 Motion to Dismiss; denying 112 Motion to Strike; denying 114 Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 01/13/2012. (tls)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
HAYLEE CHEEK, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS
vs.
SCOTT GARRETT, et al.,
Case No. 2:10-CV-508 TS
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Haylee Cheek and Shane Clark’s (“Cheek
and Clark”) Motion for Extension of Time to File Amended Complaint;1 the remaining Iron
County Defendants, Iron County Attorney Scott Garrett, Deputy County Attorney Jody Edwards,
Sheriff Mark Gower, and law enforcement officers Melissa Fritz-Fuller, Dennis Wade Lee, and
Skeen’s (collectively “Iron County Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss and Objection to Plaintiffs
Haylee Cheek and Michael Shane Clark’s Motion for Extension of Time to File an Amended
Complaint;2 the Cedar City Police Department, Robert D. Allinson, David McIntyre, Christopher
Garrison, Matt Topham, Kevin Norrin, David Evans, and Justin Zufelt’s (collectively “Cedar
1
Docket No. 104.
2
Docket No. 105.
1
City Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss and Objection to Plaintiffs Haylee Cheek and Michael
Shane Clark’s Motion for Extension of Time to File an Amended Complaint;3 the Cedar City
Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff Haylee Cheek and Michael Shane Clark’s Proposed First
Amended Complaint;4 and the Iron County Defendants’ Motion to Strike First Amended
Complaint as to Cheek and Clark.5
For the reasons discussed more fully below, the Court will grant Plaintiffs Cheek and
Clark’s Motion for Extension of Time and deny Defendants’ motions.
I. BACKGROUND
On September 1, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiffs Cheek and Clark’s Motion for Leave
to Amend Complaint.6 Pursuant to its Order, the Court granted Plaintiffs Cheek and Clark
fourteen days to file their Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs Cheek and Clark failed to file their
Amended Complaint within the fourteen days prescribed by the Court. During this time,
Plaintiffs Cheek and Clark executed a subpoena duces tecum in violation of the rules of
discovery.
On September 26, 2011, Plaintiffs Cheek and Clark filed a motion for extension of time
to file their Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs Cheek and Clark’s Motion for Extension of Time
was based partially on the need to review documents obtained through the improper subpoena.
In response, both the Iron County and Cedar City Defendants objected to Plaintiffs Cheek and
3
Docket No. 108.
4
Docket No. 112.
5
Docket No. 114.
6
See Docket Nos. 85 & 102.
2
Clark’s request for additional time and also moved the Court to Dismiss Plaintiffs Cheek and
Clark’s Complaint for failing to comply with the Court’s Order and for violation of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. On September 30, 2011, Plaintiffs Cheek and Clark filed their
Amended Complaint. The Iron County and Cedar City Defendants then filed motions to strike
Plaintiffs Cheek and Clark’s Amended Complaint.
II. DISCUSSION
Defendants’ motions are premised on the same arguments. Defendants assert that
Plaintiffs Cheek and Clark’s original Complaint should be dismissed and their Amended
Complaint stricken on the grounds that Plaintiffs Cheek and Clark have failed to abide by this
Court’s Order and violated the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendants argue that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides for the dismissal of
Plaintiffs Cheek and Clark’s Complaint. Rule 41(b) states: “If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or
to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any
claim against it.”
The Tenth Circuit has identified certain factors to consider in determining whether a
dismissal under Rule 41(b) is warranted. These factors include: (1) the degree of actual
prejudice; (2) the amount of interference with the judicial process; (3) the culpability of the
litigant; (4) whether the court warned the party in advance that dismissal of the action would be a
likely sanction for noncompliance; and (5) the efficacy of lesser sanctions.7
On balance of these factors, the Court finds that dismissal of Plaintiffs Cheek and Clark’s
Complaint is not warranted. Most notably, the Court has not previously warned Plaintiffs Cheek
7
Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds, 965 F.2d 916, 921 (10th Cir. 1992).
3
and Clark that dismissal of the action would be a likely sanction for noncompliance. The Court
also is not convinced that lesser sanctions would not be effective in ensuring Plaintiffs Cheek and
Clark’s future compliance to its orders and the federal rules.8 Moreover, while Plaintiffs Cheek
and Clark are culpable, the Court is not persuaded that their actions resulted in such actual
prejudice to Defendants and interference with the judicial process sufficient to justify the extreme
remedy of dismissal. Therefore, the Court will deny Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss.
On substantially the same grounds articulated above, Defendants move to strike Plaintiffs
Cheek and Clark’s Amended Complaint. Defendants’ Motions to Strike and Plaintiffs Cheek
and Clark’s Motion for Extension of Time are interrelated.
In its previous Order, the Court granted Plaintiffs Cheek and Clark leave to Amend their
Complaint over the Defendants’ objections. In that Order, the Court emphasized for the parties
that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) instructs that “[t]he Court should freely give leave [to
amend] when justice so requires.”9 In Minter v. Prime Equipment Co.,10 the Tenth Circuit
instructed that “[t]he purpose of [Rule 15(a)] is to provide litigants ‘the maximum opportunity
8
On this point, the Court notes that lesser sanctions are available to discourage discovery
violations. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(f). However, since Defendants have not moved for such
sanctions, the Court will not sua sponte engage in an analysis to determine whether such are
merited.
9
Docket No. 102, at 6 (emphasis in original).
10
451 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2006). The Tenth Circuit reviewed a district court’s decision
to deny a plaintiff’s motion to amend and strike plaintiff’s amended claim from the pre-trial
order. The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s order striking plaintiff’s amended claim.
4
for each claim to be decided on its merits rather than on procedural niceties.’”11 In Foman v.
Davis,12 the Supreme Court held:
If the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff may be a proper
subject of relief, he ought to be afforded an opportunity to test his claim on the
merits. In the absence of any apparent or declared reason—such as undue delay,
bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure
deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing
party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.—the
leave sought should, as the rules require, be “freely given.”13
Here, Plaintiffs Cheek and Clark filed their Amended Complaint, at most, twelve days
beyond the time allowed by the Court. The Court is not persuaded that a twelve-day-delay
constitutes “undue delay.” Moreover, while the Court does not condone Plaintiffs Cheek and
Clark’s actions in failing to abide by its Order and in violating the rules of discovery, the Court
cannot find that such constitutes “bad faith or dilatory motive.” Nor do the facts of this case
constitute “repeated failures to cure deficiencies.” Plaintiffs Cheek and Clark have indeed now
filed their Amended Complaint that provides for the dismissal of many of the Defendants
involved in the instant motions.14 Lastly, the Court finds that Defendants will not be “unduly
prejudiced” by virtue of the allowance of the amendment.
For the foregoing reason, the Court will grant Plaintiffs Cheek and Clark’s Motion for
Extension of Time and deny the Defendants’ Motions to Strike. Plaintiffs, however are warned
11
Id. at 1204 (quoting Hardin v. Manitowoc-Forsythe Corp., 691 F.2d 449, 456 (10th Cir.
12
371 U.S. 178 (1962).
13
Id. at 182.
14
See Docket No. 110.
1982)).
5
that this Court will hereafter require strict compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Rules of Practice of this District Court, and all stipulated deadlines of the parties hereinafter
stipulated to.
III. CONCLUSION
It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiffs Cheek and Clark’s Motion for Extension of Time to File
Amended Complaint (Docket No. 104) is GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED that the Iron County Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Objection to
Plaintiffs Haylee Cheek and Michael Shane Clark’s Motion for Extension of Time to File an
Amended Complaint (Docket No. 105) is DENIED. It is further
ORDERED that the Cedar City Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Objection to
Plaintiffs Haylee Cheek and Michael Shane Clark’s Motion for Extension of Time to File an
Amended Complaint (Docket No. 108) is DENIED. It is further
ORDERED that the Cedar City Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff Haylee Cheek and
Michael Shane Clark’s Proposed First Amended Complaint (Docket No. 112) is DENIED. It is
further
ORDERED that the Iron County Defendants’ Motion to Strike First Amended Complaint
as to Cheek and Clark (Docket No. 114) is DENIED.
6
DATED: January 13, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
_________________________________
TED STEWART
United States District Judge
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?