Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01174/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01174-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

BONNIE WINDSOR, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

TRAVELERS COMPANIES, INC., ET

AL.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-1174-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Defendants’ Motion to Amend Answer (Doc. #43) and

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Doc. #47). Plaintiff filed her Motion after

Defendants moved to amend their Answer to include an affirmative defense based on ERISA

preemption. Plaintiff’s Motion also comes after the deadline set in the Rule 16 Scheduling

Order for amending the pleadings. Defendants have not filed a response to Plaintiff’s Motion

to Amend. Plaintiff filed a response to Defendants’ Motion, but does not object to the Court

granting Defendants’ Motion.

In her motion, Plaintiff discusses the Rule 15(a) standard for amending pleadings. But

because she filed her motion after the date set in the Scheduling Order, Rule 16(b)’s “good

cause” standard also applies. “Unlike Rule 15(a)’s liberal amendment policy which focuses

on the bad faith of the party seeking to interpose an amendment and the prejudice to the

opposing party, Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the

Case 2:08-cv-01174-JAT Document 56 Filed 03/18/09 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609

(9th Cir. 1992). 

Defendants have not filed an objection to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint.

Pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(c), the Court will construe Defendants’ nonresponse as acquiescence in this particular case to a finding of both good cause and the three

Rule 15(a) factors. The Court will therefore grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the

Complaint. 

Also, because Defendants’ Answer will no longer respond to the operative complaint,

they will have leave to amend their Answer. The Court will not file the Lodged Amended

Answer because it does not respond to the additional causes of action in the First Amended

Complaint. 

The Court notes that granting Plaintiff leave to amend outside of the time allowed in

the Scheduling Order may impact some other scheduling deadlines. The parties shall

immediately file requests for any other extensions they feel they might need as a result of this

Order.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint

(Doc. #47). The Clerk shall file the First Amended Complaint currently lodged at Docket

#48.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING AS MOOT Defendants’ Motion to Amend

Answer (Doc. #43) because it no longer addresses the operative complaint. Defendants shall

file their Amended Answer by April 10, 2009.

DATED this 17th day of March, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-01174-JAT Document 56 Filed 03/18/09 Page 2 of 2