Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00566/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00566-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

Emilio Renova, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Company, an Illinois corporation

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV11-0566 PHX DGC

ORDER

Plaintiffs move to amend the complaint so as to clarify that this is a contract action

rather than a wrongful death action under A.R.S. § 12-612. Doc. 16. The request is timely

under the case management order entered in this case. Doc. 12. Defendant opposes on the

ground that the amended complaint lacks the proper plaintiffs for wrongful death actions

under A.R.S. § 12-612. Doc. 18. Because the amended complaint alleges this is a contract

action rather than a wrongful death action, the argument is inapposite. Defendant also

suggests the amended complaint fails because it does not name as plaintiffs all parties who

may seek relief from Defendant arising from the same transaction, citing Rule 19(a)(1)(A)

for support. Doc. 18 at 4. Defendant fails to cite law for the proposition that Rule 19

requires compulsive joinder when not all plaintiffs in a contract action against an insurance

company join the suit – or that the proper remedy is to deny amendment. The motion to

amend is granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2); Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962);

Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 880 (9th Cir. 2001).

Case 2:11-cv-00566-DGC Document 22 Filed 08/23/11 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

- 2 -

Plaintiffs also move for a stay of this case pending decision by the Arizona Court of

Appeals in a related matter. Doc. 17. Plaintiffs provide no information about the briefing

or argument status of the case before the Court of Appeals, nor any expected date for

decision. The Court also notes that Plaintiffs were aware of the Court of Appeals case when

their Rule 26(f) report was filed, and nonetheless proposed the schedule adopted by the Court

in its Case Management Order. See Docs. 10, 12. The request for a stay will be denied. 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiffs’ motion to amend (Doc. 16) is granted. 

2. Plaintiffs’ motion to stay (Doc. 17) is denied. 

DATED this 23rd day of August, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-00566-DGC Document 22 Filed 08/23/11 Page 2 of 2