Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00760/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00760-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle

---

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

1

 Plaintiffs initial Motion was initially stricken for failing to comply with the Local

Rules and prior court orders. (docket # 25)

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Oliver Reishus and Roxanne Brinker,

husband and wife,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Efran Almaraz, a single man, d/b/a EA

Trucking; Paulo Egusquiza and Jane Doe

Egusquiza, individually and as husband

and wife, d/b/a Best Tires Distributors,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-0760-PHX-LOA

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ amended Motion for Leave to

File Amended Complaint.1

 (docket # 26) Defendant has not filed a timely response. For

the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ Motion. 

I. Background

Plaintiffs commenced this action on March 1, 2010 in the Maricopa County

Superior Court, State of Arizona. (docket # 1-1, Exh. A at 5-10) Plaintiffs allege

Plaintiff Oliver Reishus was operating a semi-tractor trailer with his wife, Roxanne

Brinker. (docket # 19 at 2) They were allegedly occupying a milk-tanker truck

westbound on Interstate10 near Quartzsite, Arizona. Plaintiffs contend Defendant Efren

Case 2:10-cv-00760-LOA Document 28 Filed 07/06/10 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Almaraz was traveling eastbound on Interstate 10 when his semi-truck lost both of its

third axle drive tires and wheels on the left side, causing the tires and wheels to be

propelled across the highway median and crash into Plaintiffs’ semi-truck. (Id.) Plaintiffs

seek compensation for their general damages for their personal injuries, lost income,

medical care and expenses. (docket # 1-1, Exh. A at 9)

On April 6, 2010, Defendant Efran Almaraz removed this action to this

District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ §1441 and 1332, alleging “this Court has original

jurisdiction of all civil actions where the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value

of $75,000 (exclusive of interest and costs) and is between citizens of different states.

(docket # 1 at 2) Defendant filed his Answer also on April 6, 2010, denying any negligence and that he caused Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages. (docket ## 6, 19 at 2) 

Plaintiffs and Defendant Almaraz consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (docket ## 10, 11)

Following a May 24, 2010 Rule 16 conference, the Court issued its 

Scheduling Order which includes, among others, an October 1, 2010 deadline for

amending pleadings. (dockets # 18 at 4) In compliance with the Scheduling Order, on

June 21, 2010, Plaintiffs timely filed the pending Motion for Leave to File Amended

Complaint “[f]or the reason that Defendants Efren Almaraz and d/b/a EA Trucking have

filed a Notice of Non-Party at Fault Designation, naming Best Tires Distributor, an

assumed name in the State of Texas of Paulo Egusquiza, as a non-party at fault.” (docket

# 26 at 1) Plaintiffs request leave to amend their Complaint “to add the additional

Defendants, Paulo Egusquiza, individually and d/b/a Best Tires Distributors, and Jane

Doe Eguisquiza.” (Id. at 2)

II. Leave to Amend

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 provides that “[t]he court should freely

give leave [to amend a pleading] when justice so requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). The

Ninth Circuit has directed district courts to consider the presence of bad faith, undue

delay, prejudice to the opposing party, and futility, “with all inferences in favor of

Case 2:10-cv-00760-LOA Document 28 Filed 07/06/10 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

granting the motion [to amend].” Griggs v. Pace Am. Group, Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th

Cir. 1999); Howey v. United States, 481 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1973). Once the deadline for amending pleadings established in a pretrial scheduling order passes, however,

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, which controls the modification of a district court’s

scheduling order, governs the amendment of pleadings. Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232

F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604,

609 (9th Cir. 1991). Rule 16 provides that “[a] schedule may be modified only for good

cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4). 

Here, the liberal amendment standard of Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 15(a), rather

than the “good cause” standard of Fed. R.Civ.16, governs the proposed amendment

because Plaintiffs filed the Motion to Amend within the Scheduling Order’s deadline for

amending pleadings. Because Plaintiffs’ request to amend their Complaint was not unduly delayed given that it was made less than one month after the Scheduling Conference

was held, was filed well before the amendment deadline and because Defendant has not

established that he would be unduly prejudiced by the amendment, the Court will grant

Plaintiffs’ amended Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint.

In accordance with the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ amended Motion for Leave to File

Amended Complaint, docket # 26, is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, consistent with LRCiv 15.1 and within

fourteen (14) days of the filing of the order granting leave to amend, Plaintiffs shall file

their Amended Complaint, which they submitted as Exhibit 1 in support of their Motion

to Amend, and shall promptly serve Defendant Efran Almaraz pursuant to Rule 5, Fed.R.

Civ.P., and Defendants Paulo Egusquiza and Jane Doe Egusquiza pursuant to Rule 4,

Fed.R.Civ.P., so as to not unduly delay this litigation. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:10-cv-00760-LOA Document 28 Filed 07/06/10 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel and any party, if unrepresented, shall use the above caption, number and initials on all further pleadings, briefings

and other filings herein: to wit: CV-10-0760-PHX-LOA

Dated this 6th day of July, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00760-LOA Document 28 Filed 07/06/10 Page 4 of 4