Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-03090/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-03090-8/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

 1Counsel is advised that “In civil cases when a party requests specific relief,

except for dismissal or summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

12(b) or 56, the party must lodge with the Clerk a separate proposed order.” LRCiv

7.1(b)(2)

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Hamilton Mortgage Company, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

Carteret Mortgage Corp.,

 Defendant.

Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc.,

 Plaintiff,

v.

Hamilton Mortgage Company,

 Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff,

v.

Carteret Mortgage Corp.,

 Third Party Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-3090-PHX-SMM

 ORDER

 Pending before the Court is Carteret Mortgage Corp.’s (Carteret) Motion for Leave to

File an Amended Answer and Counterclaim (Doc. 41).1

A court may grant leave to a party to assert counterclaims after filing an answer as

justice requires, or in the event of oversight, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 13(f). Similarly, when a party seeks to amend its answer more than 20 days after filing,

Case 2:06-cv-03090-SMM Document 52 Filed 10/16/07 Page 1 of 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

 2The counterclaim asserted by Carteret is compulsory, because it arises out of the

same transaction and contract as Hamilton’s claims against Carteret. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

13(a).

- 2 -

a court will grant the motion freely when justice requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. Under both

rules, leave to amend is “generally allowed with, extreme liberality...” Heywood v. Western

Reserve Life Assur. Co. of Ohio, 2007 WL 625926, (D. Ariz. Feb. 27, 2007) (quoting

Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990)).

Hamilton filed its complaint in the first of these consolidated actions against Carteret

on November 22, 2006, and it filed a third-party complaint against Carteret in the second

action on April 2, 2007, both in the Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona. Carteret

removed these cases to this Court on December 26, 2006 and April 25, 2007, respectively.

This Court consolidated the cases on June 6, 2007. Carteret has not previously sought to

amend its pleadings which were filed by its former counsel, Weiner Brodsky Sidman Kider

PC. Foster Pepper substituted in as new counsel for Carteret Mortgage on August 6, 2007.

In light of the procedural history and the fact that Carteret seeks to amend its Answer

only by 1) adding a counterclaim2

 and 2) for the convenience of the Court, rephrasing as a

single Answer its separate Answers to the Complaint and Third-Party Complaint filed by

Hamilton in the original, separate actions, the Court will grant the motion. 

Accordingly, no objections being made thereto, and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED GRANTING Carteret’s Motion for Leave to File an

Amended Answer and Counterclaim (Doc. 41).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall file the Lodged

Amended Answer to Complaint and to Third Party Complaint and Counterclaim (Doc. 42).

DATED this 15th day of October, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-03090-SMM Document 52 Filed 10/16/07 Page 2 of 2