Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01480/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01480-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement

---

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

MURIEL L. CRAWFORD, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

WASHINGTON NATIONAL

INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois

Corporation, and CONSECO, Inc., an

Indiana Corporation, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-1480-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Plaintiff has timely filed a Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. #22) to add two new

defendants – Combined Insurance Company of America and Union Fidelity Life Insurance

Companies. Defendant Washington National does not oppose the Motion. Although

Plaintiff did not cite it in her Motion, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) governs the

request.

Rule 15(a) provides in pertinent part:

(a) Amendments Before Trial.

(1) Amending as a Matter of Course. A party may amend its

pleading once as a matter of course:

(A) before being served with a responsive pleading; or . . .

Case 2:07-cv-01480-JAT Document 27 Filed 04/11/08 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 -

(2) Other Amendments. In all other cases, a party may

amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written

consent or the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave

when justice so requires. 

. . .

While the decision to grant or deny a motion to amend is within the discretion of the

district court, "Rule 15(a) declares that leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when justice so

requires'; this mandate is to be heeded." Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). "In

exercising its discretion[,] . . . ‘a court must be guided by the underlying purpose of Rule

15—to facilitate decision on the merits rather than on the pleadings or technicalities. . . .

Thus, ‘Rule 15's policy of favoring amendments to pleadings should be applied with extreme

liberality.'" Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1135 (9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted). "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).

The extremely liberal policy in favor of amendments, however, is subject to some

limitations. The United States Supreme Court has established that motions to amend should

be granted unless the district court determines that there has been a showing of: (1) undue

delay; (2) bad faith or dilatory motives on the part of the movant; (3) repeated failure to cure

deficiencies by previous amendments; (4) undue prejudice to the opposing party; or (5)

futility of the proposed amendment. Foman, 371 U.S. at 182. "Generally, 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) (citing DCD Programs, 833 F.2d at 186).

Significantly, "[t]he party opposing amendment bears the burden of showing prejudice,"

futility, or one of the other permissible reasons for denying a motion to amend. DCD

Programs, 833 F.2d at 187.

The Court has found no evidence of undue delay, bad faith, or undue prejudice.

Plaintiff has not previously requested an amendment. Nor is futility an issue. Finally,

Defendant has no objection. The Court therefore will grant the motion.

///

Case 2:07-cv-01480-JAT Document 27 Filed 04/11/08 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 -

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. #22).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall file the proposed First

Amended Complaint lodged at Docket Number 23.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall accomplish service on the new

Defendants, Combined Insurance Company of America and Union Fidelity Life Insurance

Companies, within forty-five (45) days of the date of this Order. Failure to serve the new

Defendants within that time may result in a dismissal of the new Defendants pursuant to Rule

41(b).

DATED this 11th day of April, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01480-JAT Document 27 Filed 04/11/08 Page 3 of 3