Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01312/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01312-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1330 Breach of Contract

---

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 

Ken Gazian, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Wells Fargo Bank NA, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-01312-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiffs Ken Gazian, Pierre Investments, Inc., and Aragadz Foods, Inc. d/b/a 

Devanche Jewelers, along with cross-defendants Hubert Kelly and Kelly & Kelly, P.C. 

(collectively the “Kelly Defendants”), have filed a motion to strike Defendant Wells 

Fargo Bank NA’s answer and crossclaim (Doc. 56). Doc. 76. Plaintiffs have also filed a 

second motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. Doc. 77. The motions are 

fully briefed.1

 

I. Motion to Strike. 

Plaintiffs and the Kelly Defendants argue that the Court should strike Wells 

Fargo’s answer and crossclaim because it was filed after the October 28, 2013 deadline 

for joining parties, amending pleadings, and filing supplemental pleadings. Doc. 76 at 3. 

The answer and crossclaim was filed on November 15, 2013 (Doc. 56), was a timely 

response to Plaintiff’s amended complaint filed on October 28, 2013 (Doc. 51), and was 

 

1

 Plaintiffs’ request for oral argument is denied because the issues have been fully briefed and oral argument will not aid the Court’s decision. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); 

Partridge v. Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Case 2:13-cv-01312-DGC Document 100 Filed 05/29/14 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

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 

not an amended or supplemental pleading. The October 28, 2013 deadline therefore did 

not apply and Wells Fargo was not required to show good cause. 

II. Motion to Amend. 

 The Court denied Plaintiffs’ previous motion to amend because it was filed after 

the deadline for amending pleadings and Plaintiffs failed to address the good cause 

requirement of Rule 16 for extending a case management deadline. Doc. 73. Plaintiffs’ 

renewed motion to amend does address the good cause standard. It asserts that Plaintiffs 

had no need to amend and narrow their claims until Wells Fargo asserted a crossclaim 

against the Kelly Defendants on November 15, 2013. 

 Rule 16’s good cause standard primarily considers the diligence of the party 

seeking the amendment. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreation, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th 

Cir. 1992). “The district court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot reasonably 

be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 16 advisory committee notes (1983 amendment)). 

 The Court is persuaded that Plaintiffs’ need to amend their complaint arose from 

Wells Fargo’s crossclaim. Plaintiffs sought leave to file a responsive second amended 

complaint three weeks later (Doc. 59), which was reasonably diligent. The fact that 

Plaintiffs waited four weeks after the Court denied their motion to amend before filing 

the present motion does not alter this conclusion; the Court is not persuaded that a delay 

of four weeks shows a lack of diligence sufficient to defeat good cause. 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ and the Kelly Defendants’ motion to strike 

(Doc. 76) is denied and Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint 

(Doc. 77) is granted. Plaintiffs shall file their amended complaint on or before 

June 4, 2014. 

 Dated this 29th day of May, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-01312-DGC Document 100 Filed 05/29/14 Page 2 of 2