Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01894/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01894-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

Sentry Insurance, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Heidelberg USA, Inc., et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-1894-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Sentry Insurance’s Motion to Allow Second

Amended Complaint. (Dkt. 9.) Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15, Plaintiff seeks to amend its

First Amended Complaint to add the business entity Heidelberg Americas, Inc. as a named

defendant on the grounds that it only recently learned that the stock of defendant Heidelberg

USA, Inc. is “100% owned by Heidelberg Americas, Inc.” (Dkt. 9 at 2.)

Except for amendments made “as a matter of course” or pursuant to stipulation, leave

of the Court is required to amend a pleading. FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a). Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 15(a) governs amendments to pleadings and provides that “leave shall be freely

given when justice so requires.” Federal policy strongly favors determination of cases on

their merits, thus the policy favoring amendment is to be applied by this Court with “extreme

liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003)

(quoting Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001)

Case 2:06-cv-01894-SMM Document 11 Filed 10/02/06 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 - 2 -

(quoting Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990));

see Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 181-82 (1962).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)’s liberal policy favoring amendments is subject

to some limitations. Grant or denial of leave to amend is within the sound discretion of the

Court. Swanson v. United States Forest Service, 87 F.3d 339, 343 (9th Cir. 1996). When

evaluating whether to grant leave to amend, the Court considers whether the amendment 1)

would cause prejudice to the opposing party; 2) is sought in bad faith or with dilatory motive;

3) is futile; 4) creates undue delay; or 5) comes after repeated failure to cure deficiencies by

previous amendment. Foman, 371 U.S. at 182; Martinez v. Newport Beach City, 125 F.3d

777, 785 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Green v. City of Tucson, 255 F.3d

1086 (9th Cir. 2001).

Although the grant of leave to amend is discretionary, in the absence of any of the

Foman factors there is a presumption that leave will be granted. Eminence, 316 F.3d at 1052.

A denial of leave to amend “without any justifying reason appearing for the denial is not an

exercise in discretion.” Foman, 371 U.S. at 182-83. Therefore, unless a reason exists to

deny leave to amend, discretion of the Court is not broad enough to permit denial. Where

the record fails to indicate the Court's reasons for denial of the motion to amend, reversal is

likely. Levald, Inc. v. City of Palm Desert, 998 F.2d 680, 691 (9th Cir. 1993).

Pursuant to the Court’s liberal policy in granting amendments under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 15(a), the Court grants Plaintiff’s request to amend its First Amended

Complaint to include Heidelberg Americas, Inc. as a named defendant. To date, none of the

Defendants have filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Allow Second Amended

Complaint based on any of the Foman factors or for any other reason. Thus, the Court will

grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Allow Second Amended Complaint. See Eminence, 316 F.3d at

1052 (in the absence of any of the Foman factors there is a presumption that leave will be

granted).

Accordingly, 

Case 2:06-cv-01894-SMM Document 11 Filed 10/02/06 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 - 3 -

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED GRANTING Plaintiff’s Motion to Allow Second

Amended Complaint. (Dkt. 9.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall file the Second Amended

Complaint attached to Plaintiff’s Motion to Allow Second Amended Complaint (dkt. 9) as

the Second Amended Complaint in this action. 

DATED this 2nd day of October, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-01894-SMM Document 11 Filed 10/02/06 Page 3 of 3