Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01951/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01951-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

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

OAIC Commercial Assets, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Stonegate Village, L.P., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 04-1951-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a motion to amend the complaint to add party defendants and claims

(Doc. 43 - 47). In its motion to amend, Plaintiff seeks to add as party Defendants Stoneoaks,

L.L.C. ("Stoneoaks"), a Nevada Limited Liability Company, and Unity Waterford Fair Oaks,

Ltd. ("Unity"), a Texas Limited Partnership. Plaintiff also seeks to add new claims which

include the following: (1) invalidation of certain liens relevant to the undeveloped real

property located in Chandler, Arizona, referred to as the "Out Parcel"; (2) conspiracy to

commit fraud and civil fraud; (3) intentional omissions and/or misrepresentations; and (4)

for statutory rights and remedies as to proposed defendant Unity. As required by this Court's

Local Rules, Plaintiff has attached its proposed amended complaint as Exhibit E to its motion

to file an amended complaint. LRCiv 15.1. Plaintiff has further complied with Local Rule

15.1 by filing a redlined version of the original complaint with the proposed changes

Case 2:04-cv-01951-MHM Document 51 Filed 10/20/06 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 -

highlight. Defendant has not filed a response in opposition to Plaintiff's motion to file an

amended complaint. 

Rule 21, Fed.R.Civ.P., provides in relevant part that parties may be dropped or added

"by order of the court on motion of any party . . . at any stage of the action and on such terms

as are just." Courts generally have applied the same equitable considerations in determining

joinder or amendment. Heslop v. UCB, Inc., 175 F. Supp. 2d 1310, 1316-17 (D.Kan. 2001).

Once a Scheduling Order under Rule 16(b) has been entered, the more restrictive

provisions of that subsection apply and require a showing of "good cause" for failing to

amend prior to the deadline set in that order. See Coleman v. Quaker Oats, 232 F.3d 1271,

1294-95 (9th Cir. 2000); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir.

1992). The relevant inquiry under Rule 16(b) is the diligence of the party seeking the

amendment. As explained in Johnson, "Rule 16(b)'s 'good cause' standard primarily

considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment." Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. Any

prejudice to the opposing party can be an additional reason to deny a motion to amend, but

it is not the main focus of the Court's inquiry. Id. The inquiry ends if the moving party was

not diligent. Id. Even assuming that Plaintiff unreasonably delayed seeking to file an

amended complaint, "'[u]ndue delay by itself . . . is insufficient to justify denying a motion

to amend.'" Owens, 244 F.3d at 712-13 (quoting Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 758 (9th

Cir. 1999)).

The Scheduling Order, Fed.R.Civ.P. 16, entered in this case on June 28, 2005, set a

deadline of September 6, 2005 for filing motions to amend or to join additional parties.

Plaintiff's present motion to file an amended complaint was filed on August 4, 2006, a date

well beyond the deadline set in the Rule 16 Order. 

As stated above, Plaintiff provides good cause for its request to amend its complaint.

As grounds in support of the motion to amend, Plaintiff claims that Stoneoaks holds liens

against the property at issue in this lawsuit and, therefore, is a necessary party. Likewise,

Plaintiff argues that adding Unity is appropriate because of its "improper and unlawful lien

Case 2:04-cv-01951-MHM Document 51 Filed 10/20/06 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 -

activity" on the property at issue in this lawsuit. Thus, Plaintiff argues that granting its

motion to file an amended complaint will enable disposition of all issues between the parties

in one lawsuit. Moreover, Defendant has not filed a response opposing Plaintiff's motion to

amend. 

Under the circumstances presented, Plaintiff has shown good cause for adding claims

and parties. Further, the Court find that Plaintiff has made a sufficient showing that it has

acted with the requisite diligence. Moreover, Defendant has not filed a response opposing

Plaintiff's motion to file an amended complaint. The Court therefore grants Plaintiff's motion

to file an amended complaint (Doc. 43 - 47). Plaintiff in all other respects shall comply with

LRCiv 15.1(a-c) and shall file with the Court its amended complaint within five (5) days of

the filing date of this Order. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to file an amended complaint (Doc. 43 - 47)

is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file its proposed amended

complaint within five (5) days of the filing date of this Order. 

DATED this 18th day of October, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-01951-MHM Document 51 Filed 10/20/06 Page 3 of 3