Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01255/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01255-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of 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 

Robert D. Maguire, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Cathleen A. Coltrell, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-14-01255-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 

 Plaintiff Robert D. Maguire moves to amend his complaint against Defendants 

Cathleen A. Coltrell and John Carmichael to include the claim of unjust enrichment, as 

well as adjust the amounts of alleged compensation and damages claimed. Doc. 19. 

Defendants oppose the motion, asserting the proposed unjust enrichment claim is 

“improperly pled and fails as a matter of law.” Doc. 21 at 1. The motion is fully briefed 

and no party seeks oral argument. The Court will grant the motion. 

I. Background 

 Plaintiff alleges the following facts in his proposed amended complaint. See 

Doc. 19-1. In January 2006, Plaintiff and Coltrell began living together at a house 

Coltrell owned (the “Justine House”). Id., ¶ 6. Plaintiff immediately began to pay 

Coltrell $1,500 per month, which Coltrell principally used to retire the mortgage that 

encumbered the house. Id. Plaintiff and Coltrell formed a real estate development joint 

venture (“Maguire-Coltrell JV”), in which they were equal partners. Id., ¶¶ 2, 7. Plaintiff 

and Coltrell intended hold the Justine House as an investment for their joint venture. Id. 

Case 2:14-cv-01255-DGC Document 32 Filed 11/10/14 Page 1 of 4
- 2 - 

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 

 In 2008, Plaintiff suffered the failure of a business, known as Advanced 

Telemanagement Group, Inc. (“ATG”), in which he had partial ownership. Id., ¶ 8. In 

the summer of 2008, hoping to deter ATG’s creditors from pursuing legal action against 

him, Plaintiff transferred some amount of his personal property to Coltrell and had the 

property recorded in her name. Id., ¶ 9. It was the intent of the parties that the MaguireColtrell JV would own the transferred property, and the property would remain available 

for use by Maguire-Coltrell JV. Id. 

 In 2009, Maguire-Coltrell JV purchased another property, the “Milton House.” 

Id., ¶ 10. While attempting to obtain financing to purchase the Milton House, a third 

party’s legal action against Plaintiff’s ex-wife temporarily damaged Plaintiff’s credit 

score. Id., ¶ 12. Rather than delay the financing process, Plaintiff and Coltrell agreed to 

purchase the Milton House solely in Coltrell’s name. Id. It was the intent of the parties 

that Plaintiff and Coltrell would own the Milton House equally, and hold it for the benefit 

of Maguire-Coltrell JV. Id. Plaintiff contributed financially to the purchase of the Milton 

House, providing $104,000 toward the $160,000 down payment and $339,047 total. 

Id., ¶ 13. In July of 2009, Plaintiff and Coltrell moved into the Milton House following 

its renovation. Id., ¶ 15. 

 In February 2013, while Plaintiff was out of the country, Coltrell notified him by 

telephone that she had met another man, Defendant Carmichael, and intended to pursue a 

relationship with him. Id., ¶ 16. Following Plaintiff’s return to Arizona, Coltrell asked 

Plaintiff to move out of the Milton House, and Plaintiff did so. Id. Shortly after Plaintiff 

moved out, Coltrell and Carmichael were married and they lived in the Milton House 

until moving to Colorado. Id.

 Coltrell sold the Justine House in June of 2013 and the Milton House in September 

of 2013. Id., ¶¶ 18-19. Plaintiff asserts that the sale of both houses, in addition to the 

sale of the personal property Plaintiff transferred to Coltrell in 2008, “effected a de facto 

dissolution of the joint venture.” Id., ¶ 20. Plaintiff demanded that Coltrell distribute the 

money he is due from the liquidation of Maguire-Coltrell JV, but Coltrell has refused and 

Case 2:14-cv-01255-DGC Document 32 Filed 11/10/14 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

continues to withhold all proceeds. Id. 

 On May 7, 2014, Plaintiff brought this action against Defendants in the Maricopa 

County Superior Court. Doc. 1. On June 6, 2014, Defendants removed the action to this 

Court. Id. Plaintiff filed this motion to amend on October 13, 2014. Doc. 19. 

II. Legal Standard 

 Under Rule 15, the Court “should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so 

requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The policy in favor of leave to amend must not only 

be heeded, see Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962), it must be applied with 

extreme liberality, see Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 880 (9th 

Cir. 2001). 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 Court may deny a motion to amend if there is a showing of undue delay or 

bad faith on the part of the moving party, undue prejudice to the opposing party, or 

futility of the proposed amendment. See Foman, 371 U.S. at 182. Generally, however, 

“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). 

III. Analysis 

 Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint seeks, in part, to add a claim of unjust 

enrichment. Doc. 19-1, ¶¶ 37-38. Plaintiff’s motion to amend is timely, and there is no 

allegation of bad faith. Defendants contend that the Court should deny the motion as 

futile, claiming the proposed amended complaint alleges only the first of five elements 

required for unjust enrichment. Doc. 21 at 2. The Court disagrees. 

 “[A] proposed amendment is futile only if no set of facts can be proved under the 

amendment to the pleadings that would constitute a valid and sufficient claim or 

defense.” Miller v. Rykoff-Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 1988); see 

Foman, 371 U.S. at 182 (stating that “[i]f the underlying facts or circumstances relied 

upon by a [movant] may be a proper subject of relief, he ought to be afforded an 

opportunity to test his claim on the merits”); DCD Programs, 833 F.2d at 186 (stating 

Case 2:14-cv-01255-DGC Document 32 Filed 11/10/14 Page 3 of 4
- 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 

that “a motion to make an ‘[a]mendment is to be liberally granted where from the 

underlying facts or circumstances, the plaintiff may be able to state a claim’”) (quoting 

McCartin v. Norton, 674 F.2d 1317, 1321 (9th Cir. 1982)). 

 “To establish a claim for unjust enrichment, a claimant must show (1) an 

enrichment; (2) an impoverishment; (3) a connection between the enrichment and the 

impoverishment; (4) the absence of justification for the enrichment and the 

impoverishment; and (5) the lack of legal remedy.” Loiselle v. Cosas Management 

Group, LLC, 228 P.3d 943, 946 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). Plaintiff alleges Defendant was 

enriched (Doc. 19-1, ¶¶ 18-23), and Plaintiff was impoverished (Id., ¶¶10-14, 18-23), by 

the sale of property in which Plaintiff had invested and held an ownership interest (id.), 

and that Defendant is “wrongfully withholding” Plaintiff’s share of the proceeds from 

those sales (Doc. 19-1, ¶ 20). Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to state a claim for 

unjust enrichment. 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint (Doc. 19) is 

granted. Plaintiff shall file the amended complaint on or before November 21, 2014.

 Dated this 10th day of November, 2014. 

Case 2:14-cv-01255-DGC Document 32 Filed 11/10/14 Page 4 of 4