Rider et al v. Kawasaki Motors Corporation USA et al

Filing 136

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 75 Motion for Extension of Time for Deadline to Amend Pleadings; denying as moot 92 Motion to Amend/Correct 22 Third Party Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Evelyn J. Furse on 8/28/18 (alt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
NICOLE WELLS,
Plaintiff,
v.
KAWASAKI MOTORS CORP., U.S.A., a
Delaware corporation, KAWASAKI HEAVY
INDUSTRIES, LTD., a Japanese corporation,
and H20 ZONE, LLC, an Arizona limited liability
company,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT
AND THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF
H20 ZONE, LLC’S MOTION TO
AMEND (ECF NO. 92) AND
GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION TO
EXTEND DEADLINE FOR
DEFENDANTS TO AMEND
PLEADINGS (ECF NO. 75)
Case No.: 2:16-cv-01086-DN-EJF
Judge David Nuffer
Magistrate Judge Evelyn J. Furse

H2O ZONE, LLC,
Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN NICHOLS,
Third-Party Defendant.

Before the Court are Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff H20 Zone, LLC’s (“H20
Zone”) Motion to Amend (ECF No. 92) and Defendants Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A.
and Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd.’s (“Kawasaki Defendants”) Motion to Extend
Deadline for Defendants to Amend Pleadings (“Motion to Extend”) (ECF No. 75). The
Court held a hearing on both Motions on April 25, 2018. (ECF No. 116.) For the

1

reasons addressed below, the Court DENIES H20 Zone’s Motion to Amend and
GRANTS IN PART the Kawasaki Defendants’ Motion to Extend.
BACKGROUND
On October 2, 2017, the Kawasaki Defendants moved to strike Plaintiff Nicole
Wells’s allegation of admiralty jurisdiction. (Mot. to Strike Allegations of Admiralty
Jurisdiction (“Mot. to Strike”), ECF No. 74.) A few days later on October 4, 2017, the
Kawasaki Defendants filed their Motion to Extend, asking the Court to extend their
deadline to amend pleadings and add parties until December 15, 2017. (Mot. to
Extend, ECF No. 75 at 1.) The Kawasaki Defendants noted in their Motion to Extend
that “the outcome of the Motion to Strike will affect whether the pleadings need to be
amended and additional parties added to the case.” (Id.) The Motion to Extend noted
that the deadlines for the Defendants to amend pleadings and add parties expired on
October 5, 2017. (Id.; see also Order on Mot. to Extend Deadline for Defendants’ to
Am. Pleadings, ECF No. 58 (ordering “that the deadlines in the Scheduling Order for
Defendants to Amend Pleadings and Add Parties are extended to October 5, 2017”).
On January 1, 2018, H20 Zone filed its Motion to Amend. (ECF No. 75.) The
Motion to Amend asks the Court to allow it to amend its pleadings to assert claims for
implied indemnity due to a change in law in the Utah Supreme Court’s opinion in
Bylsma v. R.C. Willey, 2017 UT 85. (Id.)
On April 6, 2018, the Court heard argument on the Kawasaki Defendants’ Motion
to Strike, (ECF No. 113), and on April 25, 2018, heard argument on the Kawasaki
Defendants’ Motion to Extend and H20 Zone’s Motion to Amend, among other motions.
(ECF No. 116.) On April 26, 2018, the Court issued an order denying the Kawasaki

2

Defendants’ Motion to Strike. (Order Denying Kawasaki Defs.’ Mot. to Strike Allegations
of Admiralty Jurisdiction, ECF No. 117.) In that decision, the Court found that “the
federal district court has admiralty jurisdiction.” (Id. at 3.) On May 10, 2018, the
Kawasaki Defendants filed an Objection to this decision. (Obj. to Order Denying Mot. to
Strike Allegations of Admiralty Jurisdiction, ECF No. 124.) To date, the District Judge
has not yet ruled on this Objection.
DISCUSSION
During the hearing on H20’s Motion to Amend, counsel conceded that its Motion
is largely moot if maritime law applies. H20 Zone argued, however, that depending on
the outcome of the Kawasaki Defendants’ Motion to Extend and whether they added
additional parties or claims, H20 Zone may still need to amend its pleadings. The
Kawasaki Defendants argued that amendments may be necessary regardless of
whether maritime or state law applies in this case.
The Court agrees that H20 Zone’s Motion to Amend is moot but believes that all
Defendants would benefit from additional time to amend their pleadings after the District
Judge’s ruling on the Objection to the Motion to Strike, regardless of whether he affirms
the decision or not, either to plead as needed under maritime law or comply with
changes in state law. Therefore, the Court will extend the date for the Defendants to
amend their pleadings or add parties after the District Judge’s ruling, as outlined below.
ORDER
Given the Court’s ruling on the Motion to Strike, the Court finds that H20 Zone’s
Motion to Amend is moot and therefore DENIES the Motion. The Court also GRANTS
IN PART the Kawasaki Defendants’ Motion to Extend. The date to which the Kawasaki

3

Defendants asked the Court to extend the deadlines to amend or add parties has
already passed, and the Court finds that setting a specific deadline at this time would
not be productive given the pending Objection to the Order on the Motion to Strike.
Therefore, the Court ORDERS that H20 Zone and the Kawasaki Defendants shall have
fourteen (14) days to file amended pleadings and/or add parties based on joint and
several liability under maritime law or the Utah indemnity changes pursuant to Bylsma
after the District Judge issues a decision on the Kawasaki Defendants’ Objection to the
Order on the Motion to Strike (ECF No. 124). H20 Zone and the Kawasaki Defendants
do not have to seek leave pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 to make such amendments.
DATED this 28th day of August, 2018.

____________________________
Hon. Evelyn J. Furse
U.S. Magistrate Judge

4