Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01879/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01879-0/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

1

The Court will deny Plaintiff’s request for oral argument because oral argument will

not aid the Court’s decisional process. See Mahon v. Credit Bur. of Placer County, Inc., 171

F.3d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 1999).

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James Dwight Hunley, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Orbital Sciences Corporation; Richard

Mark Haynie; Louis M. Amorosi and

Gina M. Amorosi; Richard L. Fahrner

and Janet R. Fahrner; Ronald J. Grabe

and Lynn O’Keefe-Grabe; Mark J. Ogren

and Cindy L. Ogren; Satya Prasad

Maganty and Sowbhagya L. Maganty;

Brian T. Mullet and Lisa E. Mullet;

Michael G. Sims and Patricia C.

Treharne; Richard S. Straka and Purna R.

Straka; Craig N. Stuart and Susan K.

Wyman; Charles M. Whitmeyer and

Sandra L. Whitmeyer, 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-1879-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Defendants’ motions to dismiss and Plaintiff’s motions

to amend the complaint. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will permit Plaintiff to

file an amended complaint, deny the motions to dismiss without prejudice, and set a litigation

schedule pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1

Case 2:05-cv-01879-DGC Document 64 Filed 05/03/06 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 -

Background

Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a complaint against Defendants on

June 22, 2005. Doc. #1. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 19, 2005.

Doc. #_. The amended complaint was served on Defendant and purports to state seven

causes of action: violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, violation of the False

Claims Act, defamation of character, false light invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of

emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy. Id.

Defendants filed ten motions to dismiss the amended complaint on December 8, 2005.

Docs. ##25-34.

On February 16, 2006, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend complaint to cure defects in

the amended complaint and to properly state a retaliation claim under the False Claim Act

against Defendant Orbital Sciences Corporation. Doc. #45. Plaintiff attached a proposed

second amended complaint to his motion. Id. Attach. 1. On February 28, 2006, Plaintiff

filed a second motion to amend complaint to cure defects in the amended complaint and to

properly state various statutory and common law claims against the individual Defendants.

Doc. #49. Plaintiff attached a proposed third amended complaint to his motion. Id.

Attach. 1. On April 12, 2006, Plaintiff filed a third motion to amend complaint to cure any

remaining defects in the amended complaint. Doc. #58. Plaintiff lodged a revised version

of the proposed second amended complaint. Doc. #59.

Discussion

The decision to grant or deny a motion to amend complaint under Rule 15 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is within the discretion of the Court. See Zenith Radio

Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 330 (1971). The Court’s discretion to deny

leave to amend, however, is not absolute. See United States v. SmithKline Beecham, Inc.,

245 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2001). “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); see Cal. Architectural Bldg. Prods., Inc. v. Franciscan Ceramics, Inc.,

818 F.2d. 1466, 1472 (9th Cir. 1987). In exercising its discretion, the Court “‘must be guided

Case 2:05-cv-01879-DGC Document 64 Filed 05/03/06 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 -

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); see Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074,

1079 (9th Cir. 1990) (stating that leave to amend is generally allowed with “extraordinary

liberality”).

Consistent with the liberal amendment standard of Rule 15, the Court will grant

Plaintiff’s third motion to amend the complaint. The Clerk will be ordered to file the revised

second amended complaint lodged as Doc. #59. However, given the fact that this case has

been pending for more than ten months and has not yet progressed beyond the pleading stage,

as well as the fact that Plaintiff has had ample opportunity to amend his pleadings (proposing

three amended pleadings in response to Defendants’ motions), the Court concludes that the

time for amending pleadings has closed. The Court will not entertain further amendments

absent a showing of good cause. See Fed. R. Civ P. 16(b). 

Because Defendants’ motions to dismiss are directed at the now inoperative amended

complaint, the Court will deny the motions without prejudice. Defendants may move to

dismiss or otherwise respond to the revised second amended complaint pursuant to the

schedule set forth below.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendants’ motions to dismiss (Docs. ## 25-34) are denied without prejudice.

2. Plaintiff’s first and second motion to amend complaint (Docs. ##45, 49) are

denied as moot.

3. Plaintiff’s motion to amend reply to first motion to amend complaint

(Doc. #53) is denied as moot.

4. Plaintiff’s third motion to amend complaint (Doc. #58) is granted. 

5. The Clerk shall file the lodged revised second amended complaint (Doc. #59).

6. Plaintiff’s motions for extensions of time to file replies (Docs. ##54, 56) are

denied as moot.

Case 2:05-cv-01879-DGC Document 64 Filed 05/03/06 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 -

7. Pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the following

schedule shall governing this litigation:

a. The time for amending pleadings has closed.

b. Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the revised second

amended complaint by May 18, 2006.

c. Plaintiff shall file responses to any motions to dismiss the revised

second amended complaint or other motions filed under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure by June 2, 2006. Plaintiff is advised that his failure to timely respond to a motion

may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion. See LRCiv 7.2(i).

d. Defendants shall file any replies by June 23, 2006.

e. The Court will issue a second scheduling order under Rule 16(b) once

Defendants have responded to the revised second amended complaint and the Court has

resolved any motions filed under Rule 12.

DATED this 2nd day of May, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-01879-DGC Document 64 Filed 05/03/06 Page 4 of 4