Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00018/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00018-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

James A. Monroe and Kimberly )

M. Pirtle, )

Plaintiffs, ) No. 2:08-CV-0018-PHX-RCB

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

James L. Gagan, Jane Doe )

Gagan, Ross Miljenovich, )

John Does I through X, and )

Jane Does I through X, )

)

Defendants )

______________________________)

Ross Miljenovich, ) 

 )

Defendant- )

 Cross-Claimant )

)

 )

vs. )

)

James L. Gagan and Jane Doe )

Gagan, John and Jane Does 1 )

through 10 and 11 through 20, )

XYZ Corporations 1 through 10,)

ABC Partnerships 1 through 10,)

and Black and White )

Unincorporated Associations 1 )

through 10, )

)

 Cross-Defendants )

Currently pending before the court is a Motion for Leave to 

Case 2:08-cv-00018-RCB Document 32 Filed 03/03/09 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 -

Amend by plaintiffs James A. Monroe and Kimberly Monroe Clark (doc.

19).

Background

The court assumes familiarity with the protracted and rather

tortured procedural history of this action. A few aspects of that

history are directly germane to the present motion however. 

Plaintiffs sought to amend their complaint in Arizona Superior

Court, Maricopa County, because it had “come to th[eir] attention 

. . . that Defendant Miljenovic [sic] was directly involved in the

[alleged] wrongful eviction of Plaintiffs.” Id., exh. 2 thereto at

2. That amendment was proper, according to plaintiffs, because

“[w]rongful eviction is . . . actionable” in Arizona. Id., exh. 2

thereto at 2. Before that motion was resolved, however, defendants

removed that state court action to this federal district court. 

Plaintiffs now perfunctorily assert that they should be

allowed to amend their complaint as to Ross Miljenovich because

“[n]one of the reasons articulated by the U.S. Supreme court in

Foman v. Davis [371 U.S. 178, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 22 (1962)]

are present here.” Id. at 4. The defendants did not file

responses to this motion, although the time to do so has long since

passed. In fact, although obviously the court has not yet granted

this motion to amend, Mr. Miljenovich filed a “Second Amended

Answer to the Second Amended Complaint filed by” plaintiffs. 

Miljenovich Ans. (doc. 24) at 2. Mr. Miljenovich filed that answer

within three weeks of plaintiffs filing their motion to amend and

lodging their proposed second amended complaint. 

Discussion 

Pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(I) defendants’ failure to file an

Case 2:08-cv-00018-RCB Document 32 Filed 03/03/09 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 -

answering memorandum may be deemed consent to granting this motion. 

In its discretion, however, the court will briefly analyze the

merits of this motion. See LRCiv 7.2(I) (emphasis added) (“[N]oncompliance may be deemed a consent to the denial or granting of the

motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily.”)

Rule 15(a) provides that a party has the right to amend its

“pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a

responsive pleading is served.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) (emphasis

added). Shortly after removal, plaintiffs filed an amended

complaint (docs. 4 and 5). Therefore, in accordance with Fed. R.

Civ. P. 15(a)(2), plaintiffs may amend their complaint again “only

with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” 

Defendants have not given their written consent, so the court must

decide whether to allow plaintiffs to amend.

Rule 15(a)(2) also provides that courts “should freely grant

leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

15(a)(2). According to the Ninth Circuit, “[t]his policy is to be

applied with extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon,

Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (internal quotation marks and citations

omitted). In deciding whether to grant leave to amend, the Supreme

Court has instructed:

 In the absence of any apparent or declared

 reason – such as undue delay, bad faith or 

 dilatory motive on the part of the movant, 

 repeated failure to cure deficiencies by 

 amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice 

 to the opposing party by virtue of allowance 

 of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc. 

 – the leave should, as the rules require, be 

 ‘freely given.’ 

Id. at 182, 83 S.Ct. 227. “Not all of these factors merit equal

weight[]” however. Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. 

Case 2:08-cv-00018-RCB Document 32 Filed 03/03/09 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 -

“[C]onsideration of prejudice to the opposing party . . . carries

the greatest weight.” Id. (citation omitted). Moreover, “[a]bsent

prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman

factors, there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of

granting leave to amend.” Id. (emphasis in original) (citation

omitted).

Considering all of the Foman factors, the court finds that

plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend should be granted. As

previously mentioned, no opposition was filed. Presumably by their

silence, defendants are conceding that there is no prejudice in

allowing amendment here; and the court can conceive of none. There

is also no evidence of bad faith or undue delay. It appears that

this motion to amend is nearly identical to the one which

plaintiffs filed in state court prior to removal. Additionally,

plaintiffs are seeking this amendment because they have

“discovered” evidence which they believe supports a cause of action

for wrongful eviction against Mr. Miljenovich. Mot. (doc. 19) at

3. Thus, adopting the Ninth Circuit’s “presumption” of granting

leave in such circumstances, the court hereby GRANTS plaintiffs’

motion to amend. See Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the “Motion for Leave to Amend

Complaint” filed by plaintiffs James A. Monroe and Kimberly Monroe

Clark (doc. 19) is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to

file plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint (doc. 22) previously

. . . 

Case 2:08-cv-00018-RCB Document 32 Filed 03/03/09 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 -

lodged with the court. 

DATED this 2nd day of March, 2009.

Copies to counsel of record

Case 2:08-cv-00018-RCB Document 32 Filed 03/03/09 Page 5 of 5