Peoples Bank v. P/C Ambassador of the Lake et al

Filing 73

ORDER by Judge James L. Robart denying without prejudice Defendant Salvatore Ragusa's 52 motion to amend answer and file a counterclaim. (PM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

PEOPLES BANK, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

11
v.

CASE NO. C16-1403JLR
ORDER DENYING
MOTION TO AMEND

12
13

P/C AMBASSADOR OF THE
LAKE, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
Before the court is Defendant Salvatore Ragusa’s motion to amend his answer to
16
file a counterclaim. (Mot. (Dkt. # 52).) Mr. Ragusa’s motion fails to comply with the
17
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Civil Rules in several ways. First, he
18
filed his proposed counter-complaint separately and not as part of a proposed amended
19
answer. (See Prop. Counter-Compl. (Dkt. # 52-3)); cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 13 (explaining that
20
counterclaims must be asserted in a pleading); Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a) (enumerating the type
21
of pleadings allowed in federal court); see also Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 15
22

ORDER - 1

1

(explaining the requirements for a proposed amended pleading). In addition, Mr. Ragusa

2

has not yet filed an answer to Plaintiff Seattle Mobile Marine’s (“SMM”) complaint.

3

(See Dkt.; see also 11/8/16 Min. Entry (Dkt. # 54) (striking the answer (Dkt. # 51) as

4

improperly filed).) The court cannot grant Mr. Ragusa leave to amend an answer that is

5

not in the record.

6

In addition, Mr. Ragusa makes a deficient showing that amendment to state

7

counterclaims and implead non-parties is warranted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. Mr. Ragusa

8

merely asserts that it took his counsel one month to learn of the facts underlying his

9

counterclaims. (Mot. at 2-3; Jared Decl. (Dkt. # 52-2) at 2.) He does not address any of

10

the factors that govern leave to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. See

11

Sharkey v. O’Neal, 778 F.3d 767, 774 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S.

12

178, 182 (1962)); see also Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052

13

(9th Cir. 2003). Mr. Ragusa also makes no argument as to how his proposed

14

counterclaims satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13 or why joining two parties is

15

warranted under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 19 and 20. (See Mot.) Finally, when

16

Plaintiffs SMM and Peoples Bank identified these and other flaws in his motion (see

17

SMM Resp. (Dkt. # 61); Peoples Bank Resp. (Dkt. # 62)), Mr. Ragusa failed to file a

18

reply brief (see Dkt.). The court treats this failure to reply as an acknowledgement of the

19

flaws in Mr. Ragusa’s motion. Cf. Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(b)(2) (“[I]f a party

20

fails to file papers in opposition to a motion, such failure may be considered by the court

21

as an admission that the motion has merit.”).

22

ORDER - 2

1

For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES Mr. Ragusa’s motion to amend his

2

answer WITHOUT PREJUDICE to renewing that motion. If Mr. Ragusa chooses to

3

renew the motion, he must do so in a manner that complies with the Federal Rules of

4

Civil Procedure and the Local Civil Rules and makes the requisite substantive showings.

5

Dated this 25th day of January, 2017.

6

A

7
8

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 3