Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00573/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00573-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Paradigm Precision Holdings, LLC, a

Delaware limited liability company, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Prospect Manufacturing d/b/a Sonic

Machine and Tool, LLC, an Arizona

limited liability company; John Mohnach

and Sharon Mohnach, husband and wife;

Scott Mohnach and Jennifer Reiner,

husband and wife, 

Defendants. 

Prospect Manufacturing d/b/a Sonic

Machine and Tool, LLC, an Arizona

limited liability company,

Counterclaimant,

vs.

Paradigm Precision Holdings, LLC, a

Delaware limited liability company and

Smith West LLC, a Delaware limited

liability company,

Counterdefendants

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 08-CV-00573-PHX-FJM

ORDER

Case 2:08-cv-00573-FJM Document 91 Filed 12/03/08 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 -

The court has before it plaintiff/counterdefendant Paradigm Precision Holdings,

LLC’s (“Paradigm”) and third-party defendant Smith West LLC’s (“Smith West”) motion

to strike (doc. 75), defendants John Mohnach, Sharon Mohnach, Scott Mohnach, Jennifer

Reiner and defendant/counterclaimant Prospect Manufacturing d/b/a Sonic Machine and

Tool LLC’s (collectively “defendants”) response and cross motion for leave to amend and

declaration of Peter Gallagher (docs. 82 & 83), and Paradigm and Smith West’s reply

(doc. 89). We also have before us Paradigm’s motion for leave to amend and proposed

amended complaint (docs. 84 & 85). 

Paradigm brings this action against defendants alleging several causes of action, most

of which stem from agreements between defendants and Smith West. Defendants answered

Paradigm’s complaint and filed a counterclaim against both Paradigm and Smith West, which

Paradigm answered (doc. 43). Instead of filing an answer, Smith West filed a motion to

dismiss (doc. 45). We denied Smith West’s motion (doc. 68) and Smith West answered the

counterclaim on October 13, 2008 (doc. 74). On October 3, 2008, before Smith West had

filed an answer, defendants filed a first amended answer and counterclaim, without leave of

court, adding three affirmative defenses (doc. 71). Paradigm and Smith West move to strike

defendants’ first amended answer and counterclaim and defendants cross-move for leave to

amend. Paradigm also moves for leave to amend its complaint.

 Defendants argue that their amended answer and counterclaim was properly filed as

of right because Smith West had not yet answered their counterclaim. Rule 15 allows parties

to amend a pleading without leave of court before a responsive pleading is served. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A). In an action with multiple defendants, or in this case, counterdefendants,

where some have filed a responsive pleading and others have not, a party may amend its

pleading as a matter of course as to the non-answering defendants only. See Williams v.

Board of Regents, 477 F.3d 1282, 1291 (11th Cir. 2007); Barksdale v. King, 699 F.2d 744,

747 (5th Cir. 1983). Therefore, defendants were only permitted to amend their counterclaim

as to Smith West, the non-answering party, as a matter of course. Because defendants’

Case 2:08-cv-00573-FJM Document 91 Filed 12/03/08 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 -

amendments apply only to Paradigm as the plaintiff, the filing was not proper without leave

of court. 

Defendants also move for leave to file their amended answer and counterclaim if we

conclude it was not filed as of right. We grant the motion (doc. 82). We also will grant

Paradigm’s motion for leave to amend to ensure final resolution of all disputes without delay

or prejudice to defendants. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 83 S. Ct. 227 (1962).

Defendants will have an opportunity to answer Paradigm’s amended complaint and may add

their affirmative defenses at that time. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED GRANTING Paradigm and Smith West’s motion

to strike (doc. 75). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING defendants’ cross

motion for leave to amend (doc. 82). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING

Paradigm’s motion for leave to amend (doc. 84).

We encourage the parties to cooperate with each other over matters as trivial as

those raised by these motions. It is a waste of the clients’ money and the court’s time to

deal with matters so inconsequential. See Rule 1, Fed. R. Civ. P. 

DATED this 2nd day of December, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00573-FJM Document 91 Filed 12/03/08 Page 3 of 3