Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00928/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00928-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Andrew Bryans, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Nationwide Credit Corporation,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV10-0928 PHX DGC

ORDER

On April 27, 2010, Plaintiff Andrew Bryans filed a complaint against Defendant

Nationwide Credit, Inc. Dkt. #1. On June 4, 2010, Plaintiff filed a stipulation of dismissal

with prejudice of his complaint against Nationwide Credit, Inc. because “he named the wrong

Defendant.” Dkt. ##10, 11 at 2. On June 14, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file

an amended complaint to name the proper Defendant. Dkt. #11.

Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure declares that courts should “freely

give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The Supreme Court

has instructed that “this mandate is to be heeded.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182

(1962). In deciding this motion, the Court “‘must be guided by the underlying purpose of

Rule 15 – to facilitate decision on the merits rather than on the pleadings or technicalities.’”

Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1135 (9th Cir. 1987) (citation omitted). “Thus, ‘Rule 15’s

policy of favoring amendments to pleadings should be applied with extreme liberality.’” Id.

This liberality “is not dependent on whether the amendment will add causes of action or

parties.” DCD Programs, LTD. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987).

Case 2:10-cv-00928-DGC Document 12 Filed 07/14/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

The Court may deny a motion to amend if there is a showing of undue delay or bad

faith on the part of the moving party, undue prejudice to the opposing party, or futility of the

proposed amendment. See Foman, 371 U.S. at 182. Generally, however, “this determination

should be performed with all inferences in favor of granting the motion.” Griggs v. Pace Am.

Group, Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999).

The Court does not find undue delay or bad faith on Plaintiff’s part, nor does the

Court find undue prejudice or futility. As a result, the Court will grant the motion to amend.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to amend (Dkt. #11) is granted.

2. The Rule 16 Case Management Conference currently set for August 14, 2010

is postponed and will be rescheduled when the newly named Defendant has

appeared. Plaintiff should notify the Court when the Defendant has answered

or otherwise responded to the amended complaint.

DATED this 14th day of July, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00928-DGC Document 12 Filed 07/14/10 Page 2 of 2