Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02724/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02724-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 310
Nature of Suit: Airplane Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

Ronald H. Butler, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Southwest Airlines Inc., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV05-2724-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) (“Rule 15(a)”). (Doc. #25). For the following

reasons, the Motion to Amend the Complaint will be granted.

/ / /

Case 2:05-cv-02724-JAT Document 42 Filed 09/18/06 Page 1 of 7
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 -

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff initiated this action pro se. Plaintiff alleges that he suffered injuries on July

14, 2003 when his passenger seat, onboard Defendant Southwest Airlines’ commercial

airplane, gave way upon landing at Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport. Consequently, Plaintiff’s

pro se filing seeks damages for alleged permanent injury, expenses and pain and suffering

arising out of the aircraft landing.

On December 12, 2005, the Court held a Rule 16 Scheduling Conference

(“Scheduling Conference”). No one appeared for Plaintiff at the Scheduling Conference.

As a result of the Scheduling Conference, the Court issued a Rule 16 Scheduling Order

which stated that “any motion to amend the Complaint shall be filed no later than March 17,

2006.” (Doc. #10). Plaintiff did not file any motions to amend the Complaint before March

17, 2006.

In May 2006, Plaintiff retained counsel for representation in this matter.

Subsequently, on May 8, 2006, the Notice of Appearance by Scott Frazier Frerichs on behalf

of Ronald H. Butler was filed. Thereafter, on June 26, 2006, Plaintiff filed his Motion to

Amend/Correct the Complaint. Plaintiff seeks to include a claim of loss of consortium by

his wife and more fully set forth all of the damages; namely, lost wages, loss of earning

capacity, claims for future medical expenses and loss of enjoyment of life.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

Generally, Rule 15(a) governs a motion to amend pleadings to add claims or parties.

However, in the present case, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 (“Rule 16”) also applies

because Plaintiff requested leave to amend his Complaint after the Rule 16 Scheduling Order

deadline expired on March 17, 2006. Therefore, it is appropriate to discuss both Rule 15(a)

and Rule 16.

With respect to the interplay between Rules 16 and 15(a), “[a]s the Ninth Circuit

explained in Johnson [], once the district court has filed a pretrial scheduling order pursuant

to Rule 16 which establishes a timetable for amending pleadings, a motion seeking to amend

pleadings is governed first by Rule 16(b), and only secondarily by Rule 15(a).” Jackson v.

Case 2:05-cv-02724-JAT Document 42 Filed 09/18/06 Page 2 of 7
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 -

Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 607 (E.D. Cal. 1999); see Eckert Cold Storage, Inc. v. Behl,

943 F. Supp. 1230, 1232 (E.D. Cal. 1996); Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271,

1294 (9th Cir. 2000); Janicki Logging Co. v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir. 1994);

Forstmann v. Culp, 114 F.R.D. 83, 85 (M.D. N.C. 1987) (finding that a party seeking to

amend a pleading after the scheduling order date must first show “good cause” for not

amending the complaint sooner, and if “good cause” is established, the party must then

demonstrate that leave to amend is proper under Rule 15). “If [the Court] considered only

Rule 15(a) without regard to Rule 16(b), [it] would render scheduling orders meaningless and

effectively would read Rule 16(b) and its good cause requirement out of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure.” Sosa v. Airprint Sys., Inc., 133 F.3d 1417, 1419 (11th Cir. 1998).

Accordingly, the Court will first evaluate Plaintiff’s Motion under Rule 16 and then, if

necessary, under Rule 15(a).

A. Rule 16

Rule 16 applies to pretrial conferences and scheduling orders. This Rule provides, in

pertinent part:

(b) [The district court] shall, after receiving the report from the

parties under Rule 26(f) or after consulting with the attorneys

for the parties and any unrepresented parties by a scheduling

conference, telephone, mail, or other suitable means, enter a

scheduling order that limits the time

(1) to join other parties and to amend pleadings . . . .

. . . .

A schedule shall not be modified except upon a showing of good

cause and by leave of the district judge[.] 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16. “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of

the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604,

609 (9th Cir. 1992).

Generally, to meet its burden under Rule 16's “good cause” standard, the movant may

be required to show: 

(1) that [the movant] was diligent in assisting the Court in

Case 2:05-cv-02724-JAT Document 42 Filed 09/18/06 Page 3 of 7
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 -

creating a workable Rule 16 [O]rder, . . . ; (2) that [the

movant’s] noncompliance with a Rule 16 deadline occurred or

will occur, notwithstanding [the movant’s] diligent efforts to

comply, because of the development of matters which could not

have been reasonably foreseen or anticipated at the time of the

Rule 16 scheduling conference; and (3) that [the movant] was

diligent in seeking amendment of the Rule 16 [O]rder, once it

became apparent that [the movant] could not comply with the

[O]rder.

Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999). The Ninth Circuit has also

recognized that, “[t]he district court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot reasonably

be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609.

However, “carelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no reason

for a grant of relief.” Id. “Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party

opposing the modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the

inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification . . . . If that party was

not diligent, the inquiry should end.” Id. 

Here, Plaintiff has met his burden under Rule 16’s “good cause” standard. First,

Plaintiff conferred, stipulated, and developed a Joint Proposed Case Management Plan with

Defendant. Thus, Plaintiff was diligent in assisting the Court in creating a workable Rule 16

Order. Second, while Plaintiff could have reasonably foreseen or anticipated at the time of

the Scheduling Conference that he would hire counsel in the future, it is highly unlikely that

he knew of the deficiencies in his Complaint before obtaining counsel. Third, although

Plaintiff did not specifically request that the Court modify its scheduling order he was

diligent in seeking to amend the complaint. Here, seven weeks passed between the

appearance of Plaintiff’s counsel and the Motion to Amend the Complaint. Nothing indicates

that Plaintiff was careless or less than diligent. Fourth, Plaintiff seeks amendment so that full

redress may be sought. Taking all these factors together, Plaintiff has shown “good cause”

to modify the Rule 16 Scheduling Order.

B. Rule 15(a)

Rule 15(a) provides in pertinent part:

Case 2:05-cv-02724-JAT Document 42 Filed 09/18/06 Page 4 of 7
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 -

A party may amend the party’s pleading once as a matter of

course at any time before a responsive pleading is served or, if

the pleading is one to which no responsive pleading is permitted

and the action has not been placed upon the trial calendar, the

party may so amend it at any time within 20 days after it is

served. Otherwise a party may amend the party’s pleading only

by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and

leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. Although the decision whether to grant or deny a motion to amend is

within the trial court’s discretion, “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). “In exercising its discretion with regard to the amendment of pleadings

‘a court must be guided 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). “Generally, this

determination should be performed with all inferences in favor of granting the motion.”

Griggs v. Pace Am. Group, Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing DCD Programs,

Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987)). 

The liberal policy in favor of amendments, however, is subject to limitations.

Whether to grant a motion to amend depends on the following factors: (1) undue delay, (2)

bad faith, (3) prejudice to the opposing part, (4) futility of amendment, and (5) whether

plaintiff has previously amended his complaint. Western Shoshone Nat. Council v. Molini,

951 F.2d 200, 204 (9th Cir. 1991). The most important of these factors is prejudice to the

opposing party. U.S. v. Pend Oreille Public Utility Dist., No. 1, 926 F.2d 1502, 1511 (9th

Cir. 1991). “The party opposing amendment bears the burden of showing prejudice[,]”

futility, or one of the other permissible reasons for denying a motion to amend. DCD

Programs, 833 F.2d at 187; see also Richardson v. United States, 841 F.2d 993, 999 (9th Cir.

1988) (stating that leave to amend should be freely given unless opposing party makes “an

affirmative showing of either prejudice or bad faith”). 

Prejudice can result where a defendant would be forced to participate in additional

Case 2:05-cv-02724-JAT Document 42 Filed 09/18/06 Page 5 of 7
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

- 6 -

discovery. Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). Extending

discovery can also create undue delay. Solomon v. N. Am. Life & Cas. Ins. Co., 151 F.3d

1132, 1139 (9th Cir. 1998). Regarding futility, “[a] district court does not err in denying

leave to amend where the amendment would be futile . . . or would be subject to dismissal.”

Saul v. United States, 928 F.2d 829, 843 (9th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted); see also Miller

v. Rykoff-Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 1988) (“A motion for leave to amend may

be denied if it appears to be futile or legally insufficient.” (citation omitted)). Similarly, a

motion for leave to amend is futile if it can be defeated on a motion for summary judgment.

Gabrielson v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 785 F.2d 762, 766 (9th Cir. 1986). “However, a

proposed amendment is futile only if no set of facts can be proved under the amendment to

the pleadings that would constitute a valid and sufficient claim or defense.” Miller, 845 F.2d

at 214.

In this case, the Court will permit Plaintiff to amend his complaint. First, there has

not been undue delay. As previously noted, only seven weeks passed between the

appearance of Plaintiff’s counsel and the Motion to Amend the Complaint. Second, there is

no evidence of bad faith on the part of Plaintiff. Third, Defendant has not shown that it

would be unfairly prejudiced. The proposed First Amended Complaint arises out of the same

transaction and events as alleged in the original Complaint. However, to the extent that

Defendant feels it may be prejudiced due to other Rule 16 time limitations it may so move

the Court within 10 days for an extension of time. Fourth, Defendant has failed to show that

the proposed amendment is futile or legally insufficient. Fifth, Plaintiff has not previously

amended his complaint. Therefore, leave to amend is proper under Rule 15(a).

/ / /

Case 2:05-cv-02724-JAT Document 42 Filed 09/18/06 Page 6 of 7
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

- 7 -

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint (doc. #25) is

GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file the Amended Complaint within 5 days of the date this Order

is filed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Defendant intends to seek an extension of the

Rule 16 deadlines, it may so move within 10 days.

DATED this 18th day of September, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-02724-JAT Document 42 Filed 09/18/06 Page 7 of 7