Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00243/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00243-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits

---

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 

Aventis Behring, LLC, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Justin Dotson, an individual, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV12-00243 PHX DGC

ORDER 

Plaintiffs have filed a motion for leave to file a first amended complaint. Doc. 17. 

Defendants have responded, and Plaintiffs have replied. Docs. 24, 25. The Court will 

grant Plaintiffs’ motion.1

 Rule 15 makes clear that 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 Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 

880 (9th Cir. 2001). While “this mandate is to be heeded,” leave to amend may be denied 

if the amendment would be futile. Foman, 371 U.S. at 182. “[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). 

 

1

 The Court concludes that oral argument is not needed because the issues have 

been fully briefed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). 

Case 2:12-cv-00243-HRH Document 26 Filed 06/15/12 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

Defendants argue that leave to amend should be denied because the documents 

produced by Plaintiffs in this case show that Plaintiffs possess no enforceable subrogation 

rights against Defendants. Specifically, Defendants argue that the Summary Plan 

Description relied on by Plaintiffs does not constitute an enforceable ERISA benefit plan. 

Doc. 24. The purpose of the proposed amendment, however, is to correct the names of 

the proper Plaintiffs and the nature of the specific documents upon which they rely. 

Doc. 17, Ex. B. The amended complaint does not add a new or different claim to this 

case that is futile in a way the original complaint is not. Thus, the issue raised by 

Defendants does not concern the proposed amendment, but the viability of Plaintiffs’ 

claims under relevant ERISA law. The Court concludes that the amendment should be 

permitted and the parties should address, through the more complete summary judgment 

briefing provided in the Case Management Order (Doc. 23), Defendants’ arguments 

about the validity of the plan documents and any other issues the parties raise as part of 

their Rule 56 arguments. 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend (Doc. 17) is granted.

Dated this 15th day of June, 2012. 

Case 2:12-cv-00243-HRH Document 26 Filed 06/15/12 Page 2 of 2