J White L.C. et al v. Wiseman et al
Filing
115
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER-granting 95 Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint. Plaintiffs shall file their fourth amended complaint within fourteen (14) days after the date of this order. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner on 9/13/19. (jmr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
J WHITE, L.C., a Utah limited liability
company; WWIG LLC, a Utah limited
liability company; and WW-ARIS LLC, a
Utah limited liability company,
MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER
Plaintiffs,
v.
GREGORY WISEMAN, an individual;
GWSVR, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability
company; APARTMENT MANAGEMENT
CONSULTANTS, a Utah limited liability
company; RENTERS LEGAL LIABILITY
LLC, a Utah limited liability company;
RENTERS LEGAL LIABILITY RISK
PURCHASING GROUP, INC., an Illinois
corporation; DOE INDIVIDUALS, I
THROUGH CCL; ROE
CORPORATIONS, I THROUGH CCL;
and POE CORPORATIONS, I
THROUGH L,
Defendants.
Case No. 2:16-cv-01179-CW-PMW
District Judge Clark Waddoups
Chief Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner
District Judge Clark Waddoups referred this case to Chief Magistrate Judge Paul M.
Warner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). 1 Before the court is Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to
amend complaint. 2 The court has carefully reviewed the written memoranda submitted by the
1
See docket no. 60.
2
See docket no. 95.
parties. Pursuant to Civil Rule 7-1(f) of the Rules of Practice for the United States District Court
for the District of Utah, the court has concluded that oral argument is not necessary and will
decide the motion on the basis of the written memoranda. See DUCivR 7-1(f).
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs filed the original complaint in this action on November 21, 2016. 3 Defendants
moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ original complaint. 4 Instead of opposing Defendants’ motions to
dismiss, Plaintiffs elected to amend their complaint. Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint was
filed on May 5, 2017. 5 As a result of that filing, Defendants’ motions to dismiss the original
complaint were found to be moot. 6
On June 2, 2017, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint. 7 On
April 26, 2018, Judge Waddoups issued an order granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss with
respect one of Plaintiffs’ claims and denying the motions with respect to all other claims. 8 Judge
Waddoups also provided Plaintiffs with leave to file a second amended complaint. Judge
Waddoups ordered that Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint was to address only the issues
raised during the hearing on the motions to dismiss. Judge Waddoups did not allow Plaintiffs to
3
See docket no. 2.
4
See docket nos. 13, 15.
5
See docket no. 27.
6
See docket nos. 53, 54.
7
See docket nos. 34, 35.
8
See docket no. 64.
2
add claims or parties by way of their second amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed their second
amended complaint on June 7, 2018. 9
On July 18, 2018, the parties filed a stipulated motion to amend the scheduling order. 10
On July 19, 2018, this court granted that motion and issued an amended scheduling order that, in
relevant part, extended the deadline for filing a motion to add additional parties to December 7,
2018. 11
On September 13, 2018, the parties filed a stipulated motion to allow them additional
time to amend their pleadings. 12 On September 25, 2018, this court granted that motion and
provided Plaintiffs until September 28, 2018, to file their third amended complaint. 13 Plaintiffs
filed their third amended complaint on September 28, 2018. 14
On November 2, 2018, the parties filed a stipulated motion to amend the scheduling
order. 15 On November 5, 2018, this court granted that motion and issued an amended scheduling
order that, in relevant part, extended the deadline for filing a motion to add additional parties to
February 8, 2019. 16
9
See docket no. 70.
10
See docket no. 75.
11
See docket no. 76.
12
See docket no. 81.
13
See docket no. 84.
14
See docket no. 85.
15
See docket no. 89.
16
See docket no. 90.
3
On January 25, 2019, the parties filed a stipulated motion to amend the scheduling
order. 17 On January 28, 2019, this court granted that motion and issued an amended scheduling
order that, in relevant part, extended the deadline for filing a motion to add additional parties to
March 25, 2019. 18 Pursuant to the parties’ discussions about that amended scheduling order,
they stipulated to the inclusion of a footnote that provides: “In the event additional parties are
named on or before this deadline, the parties reserve the right to seek leave to extend all
discovery deadlines and increase discovery limitations.” 19
On March 25, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the motion currently before the court, in which they
seek leave to file a fourth amended complaint. 20 In their proposed fourth amended complaint,
Plaintiffs seek leave to add additional parties. Plaintiffs generally contend that they did not learn
of the identities of those additional parties until recently before the time their motion was filed.
Defendants oppose Plaintiffs’ motion.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiffs’ motion is brought under Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Under that rule, “[t]he court should freely give leave” to amend
pleadings “when justice so requires.” Id.; see also Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
The decision about whether to provide a party leave to amend its pleadings “is within the
17
See docket no. 93.
18
See docket no. 94.
19
Id. at 5 n.2.
20
See docket no. 95.
4
discretion of the trial court.” Minter v. Prime Equip. Co., 451 F.3d 1196, 1204 (10th Cir. 2006)
(quotations and citation omitted). “Refusing leave to amend is generally only justified upon a
showing of undue delay, undue prejudice to the opposing party, bad faith or dilatory motive,
failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, or futility of amendment.” Bylin
v. Billings, 568 F.3d 1224, 1229 (10th Cir. 2009) (quotations and citation omitted). The court
will address those factors in turn.
I.
Undue Delay
Plaintiffs contend that their motion is timely and was not unduly delayed. Plaintiffs argue
that their motion was filed by the deadline most recently ordered by the court. Plaintiffs further
argue that by stipulating to an extension of the deadline for motions to add parties, Defendants
contemplated that Plaintiffs would be filing a motion to add additional parties.
The court agrees with Plaintiffs’ arguments. By agreeing to extend the deadline for
motions to add parties, Defendants knew, or should have known, that Plaintiffs would potentially
move for leave to amend their complaint on or before that extended deadline. If Defendants had
objections to the potential that Plaintiffs would seek leave to amend their complaint, Defendants
should not have agreed to extend the deadline for filing such motions. Because Plaintiffs’
motion was filed prior to the relevant deadline and was contemplated by the parties through their
stipulated motion to amend the scheduling order, the court concludes that Plaintiffs’ motion was
not unduly delayed.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the court does have some concerns about Plaintiffs’
diligence in identifying relevant parties and seeking leave to add those parties. At this point, the
court accepts as being made in good faith Plaintiffs’ assertion that they only recently discovered
5
the parties to be added by way of their fourth amended complaint. However, if Plaintiffs seek
leave to add additional parties in the future, any such motion will be closely scrutinized by this
court for undue delay.
II.
Undue Prejudice
For substantially the same reasons that Plaintiffs argue that their motion was not unduly
delayed, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants will not be unduly prejudiced by Plaintiffs’ proposed
amendment. Specifically, Plaintiffs point to the above-referenced footnote in the most recent
scheduling order and note that said footnote was included at Defendants’ insistence.
Consequently, Plaintiffs argue, Defendants cannot now claim undue prejudice when they
expressly considered the fact that Plaintiffs might seek leave to add additional parties and the
corresponding effects that would have on discovery deadlines and limitations.
The court again agrees with Plaintiffs’ arguments. If Defendants believed they would be
unduly prejudiced by the addition of parties, they should not have agreed to extend the deadline
for filing motions to add parties. By expressly considering the potential that Plaintiffs would
seek leave to add additional parties and agreeing to an extended deadline for Plaintiffs to do so,
Defendants cannot now claim undue prejudice.
However, as stated above, the court has some reservations about Plaintiffs’ diligence in
identifying relevant parties and seeking leave to add those parties. Consequently, if Plaintiffs
seek leave to add additional parties in the future, any such motion will be closely scrutinized by
this court for undue prejudice.
6
III.
Bad Faith or Dilatory Motive
As noted above, the court accepts as being made in good faith Plaintiffs’ assertions
concerning the recent discovery of the additional parties to be added by way of their fourth
amended complaint. Accordingly, at this point, the court cannot ascribe to Plaintiffs any bad
faith or dilatory motive. However, for the same reasons previously stated, any future attempts by
Plaintiffs to add additional parties will be closely scrutinized by this court for bad faith or
dilatory motive.
IV.
Failure to Cure Deficiencies in Previous Amendments
Given Plaintiffs’ assertion that they only recently learned of the additional parties they
seek to add by way of their fourth amended complaint, which the court accepts as being made in
good faith, Plaintiffs could not have added those parties by way of previous amendments.
V.
Futility of Amendment
Defendants argue, for various reasons, that Plaintiffs’ motion should be denied because
the claims against the parties to be added by way of Plaintiffs’ fourth amended complaint are
futile. At this juncture, the court cannot conclusively determine whether those claims are futile.
In the court’s view, that determination would be best made through any dispositive motions to be
filed by the newly added parties. Furthermore, the court concludes that any arguments in support
of any such dispositive motions are best made by the additional parties to be added, not by
Defendants.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
After considering the relevant factors, the court concludes that Plaintiffs should be
provided with leave to file their fourth amended complaint. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY
7
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend complaint 21 is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall
file their fourth amended complaint within fourteen (14) days after the date of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 13th day of September, 2019.
BY THE COURT:
PAUL M. WARNER
Chief United States Magistrate Judge
21
See docket no. 95.
8
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?