Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02617/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02617-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

CLIFFORD DENNEY,

NO. CIV. S-05-2617 WBS JFM

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: 

MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION

TO AMEND THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT

TRANS WEST LOGISTIC SYSTEM,

STANISLAS TRAMOY, and DOES 1

through 10,

Defendants.

 

TRANS WEST LOGISTIC SYSTEM and

STANISLAS TRAMOY,

Third-Party Plaintiffs,

v.

LEE SPARKS; BEHRENS MOVING, INC.;

ALLIED VAN LINES, INC.; ANDREZ J.

REMBOWSKI; KRZYSTZTOF D. DURMA;

MERVIN LEE HEUSEVELDT;

ALBERTSON’S, INC.; DEAN CAMERON

EFHEN; WESTERN MATERIAL SUPPLY;

DANNY SHANE KING, JR.; and

STEPHEN RAY SCHULTZ;

Third-Party Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Case 2:05-cv-02617-WBS -JFM Document 34 Filed 08/18/06 Page 1 of 5
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

On October 31, 2003, plaintiff Clifford Denney suffered

numerous injuries to his face and lower back following a

multiple-vehicle accident on Interstate 80. (Defs.’ Notice of

Removal Ex. A.) Denney filed suit against defendants Trans West

Logistics Systems (“Trans West”) and Stanislas Tramoy in the

Superior Court of California in and for the County of Nevada to

recover compensation for his resulting medical expenses and other

damages. (Id. ¶¶ 1-2.)

Defendants removed the case to this court on December

23, 2005 and sought leave of the court to join additional parties

on May 26, 2006. The court granted this request and defendants

accordingly filed their third-party complaint, which seeks

indemnification and/or contribution from third-party defendants

Lee Sparks, Behrens Moving, Inc., Allied Van Lines, Inc., Andrez

J. Rembowski, Krzystztof D. Durma; Mervin Lee Heuseveldt,

Albertson’s, Inc., Dean Cameron Efhen, Western Material Supply,

Danny Shane King, Jr., and Stephen Ray Schultz.

However, the parties named in the caption of the thirdparty complaint do not match the parties identified in the text. 

In particular, Behrens Moving, Inc. was included in the caption

but not in the body. Behrens thus moves to dismiss the complaint

as to it, arguing that the third-party plaintiffs have failed to

state a claim against it. 

Reacting to Behrens’ motion, the third-party plaintiffs

have filed a motion to amend their complaint in which they

address Behrens’ concern by adding allegations against this

defendant to the body of the complaint. They have also added

Dean Cameron Efhen, Western Material Supply, Danny Shane King,

Case 2:05-cv-02617-WBS -JFM Document 34 Filed 08/18/06 Page 2 of 5
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

Jr., and Stephen Ray Schultz to the caption of the complaint

(previously these parties were only mentioned in the text). 

Finally, they have removed third-party defendant Ryder Truck from

the body of the complaint. Plaintiffs attribute any

discrepancies between the caption and the body of the complaint

to an “inadvertent error” and now move to amend.

I. Motion to Amend the Complaint

Rule 15 empowers the parties to agree to amendments and

alternatively directs the court to freely grant leave to amend

“when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Leave should

be allowed if amendment can save the complaint unless there has

been undue delay, amendment is sought in bad faith, or amendment

would result in prejudice to the opposing party. Edwards v.

Occidental Chem. Corp., 892 F.2d 1442, 1446 (9th Cir. 1990). 

“[T]his policy is to be applied with extreme liberality.” 

Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th

Cir. 1990); Breier v. N. Cal. Bowling Proprietors’ Ass’n, 316

F.2d 787, 790 (9th Cir. 1963) (“Leave to amend should be allowed

unless the complaint ‘cannot under any conceivable state of facts

be amended to state a claim.’” (quoting Alexander v. P. Mar.

Ass’n, 314 F.2d 690 (9th Cir. 1963))). 

The court has not yet issued a scheduling order in this

matter specifically because the parties requested an August 4,

2006 deadline for joinder of additional parties. Third-party

plaintiffs filed this motion on July 14, 2006. Given these

relevant dates, and the fact that these proceedings are clearly

still in the initial stages, the third-party defendants cannot

seriously accuse the third-party plaintiffs of undue delay or bad

Case 2:05-cv-02617-WBS -JFM Document 34 Filed 08/18/06 Page 3 of 5
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

faith. Nor are there any grounds to argue that amendment would

significantly prejudice defendants in any way. The third-party

plaintiffs’ motion to amend will therefore be granted.

II. Motion to Dismiss

Typically, an amended complaint moots all pending

motions. Datastorm Techs., Inc. v. Excalibur Commc’ns, Inc., 888

F. Supp. 112, 114 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (“A complaint that has been

amended pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) supersedes the pleading

it modifies, rendering the original pleading void.” (citing Loux

v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55 (9th Cir. 1967)). Moreover, although “the

[c]ourt may exercise its discretion to consider a motion to

dismiss the original complaint where the amended complaint fails

to cure the defects of the original complaint”, this approach is

not warranted in this case. Fitzgerald v. State, No. Civ.

96-2077, 1997 WL 579193, at *3 (D. Ariz. July 9, 1997). Behrens’

motion to dismiss only argued that the third-party plaintiffs’

failure to include Behrens in the body of the complaint amounted

to failure to state a claim. The amended complaint remedies this

problem and thus moots Behrens’ motion.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that third-party plaintiffs’

motion to amend be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. Third-party

plaintiffs have twenty (20) days from the date of this Order to

file a First Amended Third-Party Complaint consistent with this

Order.

///

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-02617-WBS -JFM Document 34 Filed 08/18/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that third-party defendant

Behrens Moving Co.’s motion to dismiss be, and the same hereby

is, DENIED.

DATED: August 18, 2006

 

Case 2:05-cv-02617-WBS -JFM Document 34 Filed 08/18/06 Page 5 of 5