Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01363/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01363-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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 

Franchise Holding II, LLC,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Huntington Restaurants Group, Inc, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-12-01363-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiff Franchise Holding II, LLC moves to amend its complaint pursuant to 

Rule 15(a). Doc. 33. Defendants filed a response opposing the proposed amendment 

(Doc. 34) and Plaintiff filed a reply (Doc. 35). For the reasons that follow the Court will 

grant the motion. 

 Rule 15(a) provides that leave to amend “shall be freely given when justice so 

requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The Ninth Circuit has explained that it is an abuse of 

discretion to deny a motion to amend when “there is a lack of prejudice to the opposing 

party and the amended complaint is obviously not frivolous, or made as a dilatory 

maneuver of bad faith[.]” Howey v. United States, 481 F.2d 1187, 1190-91 (9th Cir. 

1973). Plaintiff filed its motion to amend within the deadline set in the October 31, 2012 

Case Management Order. Doc. 27. It seeks to add facts alleging additional breaches of 

the contract that is already at issue in this case. Doc. 33 at 3. These claims are not 

frivolous. 

 Defendants make two arguments. First, they repeat an argument from their motion 

to dismiss that Plaintiff claims excessive damages. This argument is irrelevant to the 

Case 2:12-cv-01363-DGC Document 42 Filed 02/13/13 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 

question of whether leave to amend should be granted (in fact, the damages portion of the 

complaint remains unchanged). Second, Defendants argue that because a fee award is 

sometimes available in breach of contract claims under Arizona law, they have been 

prejudiced by the additional fees generated investigating these “tangential” claims and 

drafting a motion and a new complaint. Doc. 34 at 3-4; see A.R.S. § 12-341.01. Any 

increase in a potential fee award that is the result of investigating a non-frivolous claim is 

not unduly prejudicial, and Defendants will be required to pay Plaintiff’s fees only if 

Plaintiff prevails. Additionally, the costs of drafting a motion to amend could have been 

avoided had Defendants stipulated to the proposed amendments. 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend (Doc. 33) is granted. 

Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint on or before February 20, 2013. 

 Dated this 13th day of February, 2013. 

Case 2:12-cv-01363-DGC Document 42 Filed 02/13/13 Page 2 of 2