Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01719/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01719-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRUDI McCULLUM,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10CV1719-LAB (RBB)

ORDER APPROVING

WITHDRAWAL OF ATTORNEY

APPEARANCE; AND

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

COMPLAINT

vs.

LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT

CARRUTHERS,

Defendant.

The unopposed ex parte application to withdraw the appearance of Michael Agruss,

Esq. (Docket no. 19) is GRANTED.

On July 10, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint, and to continue the trial

date (Docket no. 25). The motion also seeks to continue the trial date, although the motion

doesn’t explain why a continuance is needed or appropriate.

The motion to amend represents that Plaintiff has discovered that the named

Defendant, Law Offices of Scott Carruthers (also referred called “Law Offices of D. Scott

Carruthers”), is not actually the proper Defendant, and that D. Scott Carruthers, Esq. is doing

business under this name. The motion therefore seeks to amend the complaint to name D.

Scott Carruthers as Defendant.

- 1 - 10CV1719

Case 3:10-cv-01719-LAB-RBB Document 36 Filed 07/13/12 Page 1 of 3
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

Defendant Law Offices of Scott Carruthers opposed the amendment primarily on the

grounds that it is late without a good explanation. It inexplicably also claims it would be

prejudiced by the amendment, which (for reasons not explained) would increase attorney’s

fees.

This last objection blurs the line between D. Scott Carruthers (who is acting as

counsel for the Law Offices) and the current named Defendant, Law Offices of Scott

Carruthers. Obviously, if the Law Offices is a real entity capable fo being sued, it would not

be prejudiced by being dismissed as a Defendant, and would in fact welcome dismissal. On

the other hand, D. Scott Carruthers himself would be prejudiced. There is, however, no

reason to think Mr. Carruthers would be unfairly prejudiced. He obviously knows about this

action, has been participating in it, has been representing that the Law Offices are a proper

Defendant, and has been representing to Plaintiff and to the Court that “Law Offices of Scott

Carruthers” are the equivalent of Carruthers himself. At the pretrial conference, for example,

he referred to himself in the first person as the Defendant. See also Minute Order of

Magistrate Judge Ruben Brooks (Docket no. 33) (noting that “Defendant Dennis Carruthers,

pro se, appeared in this Court’s chambers as instructed”).

Assuming there were some distinction between the Law Offices and Carruthers

himself, Carruthers would be acting under a substantial conflict of interest by opposing the

amendment. It is apparent, however, that neither party seriously thinks there is any

difference between the lawyer D. Scott Carruthers and the Law Offices of Scott Carruthers.

This situation is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(C), which permits amendment

(and relation back of that amendment) when:

the amendment changes the party or the naming of the party against whom

a claim is asserted, if Rule 15(c)(1)(B) is satisfied and if, within the period

provided by Rule 4(m) for serving the summons and complaint, the party to

be brought in by amendment:

(i) received such notice of the action that it will not be prejudiced in

defending on the merits; and

(ii) knew or should have known that the action would have been brought

against it, but for a mistake concerning the proper party's identity. 

- 2 - 10CV1719

Case 3:10-cv-01719-LAB-RBB Document 36 Filed 07/13/12 Page 2 of 3
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

These conditions are clearly satisfied here, and the complaint is therefore DEEMED

AMENDED to name D. Scott Carruthers (d/b/a Law Offices of Scott Carruthers) as

Defendant. The Clerk is directed to make this change in the docket. There is no reason to

continue the trial date, so that request is DENIED. The trial will commence as scheduled,

and the pretrial order will issue shortly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 13, 2012

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 3 - 10CV1719

Case 3:10-cv-01719-LAB-RBB Document 36 Filed 07/13/12 Page 3 of 3