Balvage et al v. Ryderwood Improvement and Service Association, Inc.

Filing 164

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H Settle granting 151 Motion to Amend. Counsel is directed to e-file their Amended Complaint by 11/2/2012. (TG)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

5
6

7 RAYMOND T. BALVAGE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
v.

9

10 RYDERWOOD IMPROVEMENT AND
SERVICE ASSOCIATION, INC.,
11

CASE NO. C09-5409 BHS
ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO
AMEND

Defendant.

12
13

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend (Dkt.

14 151). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the
15 motion and the remainder of the file and hereby grants the motion for the reasons stated
16 herein.
17
18

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Because the parties and the Court are familiar with the history of this case, the

19 Court will focus on the history relevant to the instant motion. On August 28, 2012, the
20 Court issued a scheduling order setting the deadline for amended pleadings as October 9,
21 2012. Dkt. 150.
22

ORDER - 1

1

On September 20, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their complaint. Dkt.

2 151. Plaintiffs sought to remove two named plaintiffs that have passed away and add an
3 additional claim for violations of 42 U.S.C. § 3617. Id. On October 1, 2012, Defendant
4 Ryderwood Improvement snd Service Association, Inc. (“Ryderwood”) responded. Dkt.
5 152. On October 5, 2012, Plaintiffs replied (dkt. 154) and submitted four declarations in
6 support of their motion (Dkts. 155, 156, 157, & 158). On October 10, 2012, Ryderwood
7 filed a surreply. Dkt. 160. On October 11, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a motion to strike the
8 surreply because it is overlength. Dkt. 163.
9
10

II. DISCUSSION
The standard at this point of the proceeding is whether there are sufficient

11 allegations to support a claim for relief. Plaintiffs’ new claim is allegedly based on
12 conduct that has occurred subsequent to the filing of the operative complaint on file (Dkt.
13 41). Plaintiffs, however, have failed to include any additional factual allegations in their
14 proposed amended complaint to support their new claim. Compare Dkt. 41, ¶¶ 37–70
15 with Dkt. 151, Exh. A, ¶¶ 35–68. Ryderwood correctly points out that the proposed
16 amended complaint fails to allege new facts. Dkt. 152. To overcome this failure,
17 Plaintiffs improperly submitted new evidence with their reply brief, which led to both
18 requests to strike. Regardless of the procedural improprieties, the operative elements of
19 an amended complaint have been presented to the Court through factual allegations
20 (Dkts. 155, 156, 157, & 158) and sufficient notice of a new cause of action (see Fed. R.
21 Civ. P. 8). Ryderwood raises two arguments against allowing theses amendments, undue
22 delay and prejudice. Dkt. 152 at 7–12.

ORDER - 2

1

First, Ryderwood’s undue delay argument is based on Plaintiffs’ failure to add

2 new factual allegations. Ryderwood was correct until Plaintiffs supplemented the record
3 and put Ryderwood and the Court on notice of the factual allegations they contend
4 support their claim for relief.
5

Second, Ryderwood claims that it would be prejudiced because discovery “will

6 balloon exponentially . . . .” Dkt. 152 at 9. Additional discovery is rarely, if ever, a
7 reason to deny leave to amend a complaint before the proper deadline set by the Court in
8 its scheduling order. Moreover, there are more appropriate ways to accommodate a
9 party’s failure to complete discovery despite diligent efforts to abide by the Court’s
10 deadlines.
11

Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ leave to amend their complaint consistent

12 with this order. The proposed amended complaint is deficient on its face and must
13 include factual allegations as set forth in the declarations submitted to the Court.
14

III. ORDER

15

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to amend (Dkt. 151) is

16 GRANTED and Plaintiffs must file an amended complaint no later than November 2,
17 2012.
18

Dated this 26th day of October, 2012.

A

19
20

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

21
22

ORDER - 3