Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00760/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00760-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Oliver Reishus and Roxanne Brinker,

husband and wife,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Efran Almaraz and Alejandra Estrada,

individually as husband and wife, d/b/a EA

Trucking; Paulo Egusquiza and Jane Doe

Egusquiza, individually and as husband

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

Eduardo Merino, a single man,

Defendants. _________________________________

Paulo Eguisquiza, individually, d/b/a Best

Tires Distributors,

Cross-Claimant,

vs.

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

Trucking,

Cross-Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-0760-PHX-LOA

ORDER

This case comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File

Second Amended Complaint, filed on September 10, 2010. (Doc. 42) Defendants Efren

Almaraz, d/b/a EA Trucking, and Paulo Eguisquiza, d/b/a Best Tires Distributors, responded, indicating they have no objection to Plaintiffs’ Motion. (Docs. 45, 47)

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

Case 2:10-cv-00760-LOA Document 49 Filed 09/29/10 Page 1 of 3
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 -

scheduling order which includes, among others, a October 1, 2010 deadline for amending

pleadings. (Doc. 18 at 4) In compliance with the scheduling order, Plaintiffs timely filed

the pending Motion because Defendant Efren Almaraz has “advised Plaintiffs that

Jane Doe Almaraz’s true name is Alejandra Estrada[]” and Defendant Efren Almaraz’

discovery responses indicate that “Eduardo Merino [w]as the driver of the semi tractor

trailer, owned by EA Trucking, involved in the subject incident.” (Doc. 42) Plaintiffs

request leave to amend their Complaint to add as additional Defendants, Alejandra

Estrada and Eduardo Merino.

 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)(2). 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

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 amendment motion within the scheduling order’s deadline for

amending pleadings. Because Plaintiffs’ request to amend their Complaint was before the

amendment deadline and because Defendants have no objection to the granting of the

Motion, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Second

Amended Complaint.

In accordance with the foregoing,

Case 2:10-cv-00760-LOA Document 49 Filed 09/29/10 Page 2 of 3
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 -

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint, docket # 42, 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 its Motion to

Amend except it shall contain the double caption used in this order, and shall

promptly serve Defendants Alejandra Estrada and Eduardo Merino pursuant to Rule 4,

Fed.R.Civ.P., so as to not unduly delay this litigation. Absent a conflict of interest,

counsel for Defendants shall consider waiving service of process for Alejandra Estrada

or Eduardo Merino pursuant to Rule 4(d), Fed.R.Civ.P. See, Darulis v. Garate, 401 F.3d

1060, 1063-64 (9th Cir. 2005).

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

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

Dated this 29th day of September, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00760-LOA Document 49 Filed 09/29/10 Page 3 of 3