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)

Download PDF
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

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?