Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01766/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01766-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

TINA BRUCE, JAYME BRUCE, a

minor, by and through her

Guardian Ad Litem, Tina Bruce,

and JESSICA BRUCE, a minor, by

and through her Guardian Ad

Litem, Tina Bruce,

 CASE NO. CIV. S-05-01766 WBS KJM

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER RE: MOTION

 TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT 

BOBCAT COMPANY, MELROE

COMPANY, INGERSOLL-RAND

COMPANY, WILDS HORTICULTURAL

SERVICES, INC., SAMUEL WILDS,

and Does 1 through 50,

inclusive,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Plaintiffs, the widow and minor daughters of decedent

Jerry Bruce, sued defendants Bobcat Company, Melroe Company,

Ingersoll Rand, Samuel Wilds, and Wilds Horticultural Services in

the Superior Court of California in and for the County of Shasta. 

Plaintiffs’ claims included allegations of products liability,

Case 2:05-cv-01766-WBS -KJM Document 13 Filed 11/21/05 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

negligence, breach of implied warranty, and negligent infliction

of emotional distress. (Compl. ¶¶ 6-20.) Based on diversity,

defendants removed the case to this court on September 1, 2005,

and plaintiffs now seek to amend their complaint to substitute

Clark Equipment Company, a subsidiary of defendant Ingersoll

Rand, as a defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

15(a).

After responsive pleadings are filed, leave to amend a

complaint is “within the sound discretion of the trial court” and

“shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ.

Proc. 15(a); United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir.

1981). Amendment is proper “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. . . . .” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S.

178, 182 (1962).

Defendants have not raised any of the Foman factors in

defense of this motion. In fact, defendants do not oppose

plaintiffs’ motion. (Defs.’ Non-Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. for Leave to

Am. Compl. at 1.) Because Clark Equipment “is a corporation

incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware, with its

principal place of business in . . . New Jersey,” (Defs.’ Notice

of Removal ¶ 6), and its role as a defendant in this suit would

not destroy diversity, the court finds amendment proper. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to

amend the complaint be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. 

Case 2:05-cv-01766-WBS -KJM Document 13 Filed 11/21/05 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

WBS: I took the 20 day time line from one of your orders 1

in another case. The proposed amended complaint has already been

submitted with the Brickwood declaration (R. 9), but I assumed

that a more formal filing needs to take place before the

amendments are recognized by the court.

3

Plaintiffs shall have twenty (20) days from the date of this 1

Order to file a First Amended Complaint consistent with this

Order.

DATED: November 18, 2005

Case 2:05-cv-01766-WBS -KJM Document 13 Filed 11/21/05 Page 3 of 3