Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01527/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01527-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal- 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 Because Defendant has already filed one amended answer, the motion is considered as a motion for leave 1

to file a second amended answer.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALICE HOLMES, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

v. )

)

HOME DEPOT USA, INC., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:06-cv-01527-SMS

ORDER GRANTING MOTION OF

DEFENDANT WALBRO ENGINE

MANAGEMENT, LLC., FOR LEAVE TO

FILE SECOND AMENDED ANSWER (DOC.

51)

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO FILE

SECOND AMENDED ANSWER WITHIN

FIFTEEN DAYS OF SERVICE OF THIS

ORDER 

Plaintiffs are proceeding with a civil action in this Court.

The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge for all

proceedings, including the entry of final judgment, pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b), and Local Rule 73-301.

Pending before the Court is the motion of Defendant Walbro Engine

Management, LLC., for leave to file a first amended answer.1

The instant suit is one for personal injury and property

damage to both Plaintiffs based on general negligence and product

liability and suffered when a lawnmower which Defendants

manufactured and sold was used by Plaintiff Vernon Holmes in

Case 1:06-cv-01527-SMS Document 60 Filed 01/15/08 Page 1 of 4
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

August 2005, and resulted in a fire. Defendant WEM filed an

answer on September 20, 2006, and an amended answer on October 6,

2006. The motion for leave to file an amended answer was filed on

December 6, 2007, with a memorandum and declaration of Daniel P.

Lyons with attachments. Plaintiffs filed notice of non-opposition

on December 28, 2007, in which they stated that they had no

opposition for the granting of the motion for leave to file a

first amended answer to set up an omitted compulsory counterclaim

against Plaintiff Vernon Holmes. Defendant filed a notice on

January 14, 2008, in which it requested that the motion be

granted without a hearing and the matter be submitted on the

papers. By separate order, the hearing on the motion has been

vacated, and the matter has been submitted to the Court for

decision.

Based on facts obtained in discovery, Defendant WEM seeks to

file a second amended answer to set up omitted counterclaims

against Plaintiff Vernon Holmes, including indemnity, declaratory

relief, and negligence based on Plaintiff’s allegedly illegal and

negligent act of mowing dried weeds and grass on his property in

violation of California law. 

The parties have stipulated to a continuance of expert

disclosure dates and other dates.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 13(f) provides that the Court may permit a

party to amend a pleading to add a counterclaim if it was omitted

through oversight, inadvertence, or excusable neglect or if

justice so requires. Generally, pursuant to Rule 15(a), amendment

of pleadings should be liberally allowed, and in determining

whether leave to amend should be granted, courts consider factors

Case 1:06-cv-01527-SMS Document 60 Filed 01/15/08 Page 2 of 4
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

such as the good faith and diligence of the claimant, the extent

of the delay, futility of amendment, and the danger of prejudice

to the opposing party. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).

These factors are likewise considered in determining if, pursuant

to Rule 13(f), leave should be granted to allow an amendment to

allege a counterclaim omitted through oversight, inadvertence, or

excusable neglect, or when justice requires. Pioneer Investment

Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership, 507

U.S. 380, 392 n. 10 (1993); Hip Hop Beverage Corp. v. RIC

Representcoes Importacao e Comercio Ltda., 220 F.R.D. 614, 620

(C.D.Cal. 2003). Generally, although the decision to grant or

deny a motion for leave to amend is governed by the district

court’s discretion, amendment is permitted unless the opposing

party makes a showing of undue delay, bad faith, undue prejudice,

or futility of amendment on the part of the moving party. Hip Hop

Beverage Corp. RIC etc., 220 F.R.D. 614, 620 (C.D.Cal. 2003).

A counterclaim is compulsory, and thus must be alleged in

the action or be lost after its conclusion, if it arises out of

the same transaction or occurrence as the plaintiff’s claim. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 13(a); Hydranautics v. Filmtec Corp., 70 F.3d 533, 536

(9 Cir. 1995). A claim arises out of the same transaction or th

occurrence if the issues of fact and law are largely the same for

both the claim and counterclaim, the same evidence will support

or refute both claims, res judicata would bar a subsequent suit

on the defendant’s claim, or there is a logical relationship

between the claim and counterclaim. FDIC v. Hulsey, 22 F.3d 1472,

1487 (10 Cir. 1994). th

Here, the counterclaim arises out of the same transaction

Case 1:06-cv-01527-SMS Document 60 Filed 01/15/08 Page 3 of 4
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

4

and raises some issues of fact and law that are the same as the

underlying claim. There is no showing of improper purpose, undue

delay, or prejudice. The motion is unopposed.

Accordingly, it IS ORDERED that the motion of Defendant

Walbro Engine Management, LLC., for leave to file a second

amended answer, IS GRANTED.

Defendant SHALL FILE the second amended answer no later than

fifteen days after the date of the filing of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 14, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01527-SMS Document 60 Filed 01/15/08 Page 4 of 4