Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08157/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08157-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:2671 Federal Tort Claims Act

---

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

Trina Mathis, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

United States of America, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-8157-PCT-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiffs’ motion to file a second amended complaint (doc.

165) and memorandum in support (doc. 166), defendant United States’ response (doc. 169),

defendant Attentus Provider Group’s (“APG”) response (doc. 172), defendant Nationwide

Nurses, Hudson, and Jackson’s response (doc. 174), defendant Theodore Collins’ response

(doc. 176), and plaintiffs’ replies (docs. 177, 180, 181). We also have before us defendant

APG’s motion for leave to file a sur-reply (doc. 194), plaintiffs’ response (doc. 200), and the

United States’ response (doc. 205). 

We first deny APG’s motion for leave to file a sur-reply, a document not contemplated

by the federal or local rules of civil procedure (doc. 194). APG contends it needs to file a

sur-reply based on new arguments raised in plaintiffs’ replies. We will not consider an

argument raised for the first time in a reply. See Gadda v. State Bar of Cal., 511 F.3d 933,

937 n.2 (9th Cir. 2007). Thus, there is no need for a sur-reply.

Case 3:10-cv-08157-FJM Document 215 Filed 11/30/11 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 -

This case involves allegations of wrongful death caused by medical negligence in the

treatment of decedent Tommy Clarke at Sage Memorial Hospital. Plaintiffs now seek leave

to file a second amended complaint primarily to add a new claim against defendant APG for

negligent hiring and retention of defendant Theodore W. Collins, D.O., the treating

emergency room physician. Plaintiffs originally stated a claim for respondeat superior

against APG relating to Dr. Collins’ alleged negligence. Plaintiffs affirmatively pled that if

they “learn in discovery that Collins was truly an independent contractor of APG, APG

would not be vicariously liable for Collins’ negligence and plaintiffs will drop their claims

against APG.” Amended Complaint at 3 n.1 (doc. 51). 

Plaintiffs now claim that they have discovered that Dr. Collins was not an employee

of APG, but was engaged by APG as an independent contractor. Notwithstanding their

earlier intention to dismiss the claim against APG, plaintiffs now seek to add an entirely new

theory of liability against APG, that of negligent hiring and retention. 

Defendants object to the amendment, arguing that plaintiffs learned on or about May

10, 2011, when they received an agreement between APG and Sage Memorial Hospital, that

Dr. Collins was an independent contractor, not an employee. Plaintiffs’ Reply to APG at 6.

Yet plaintiffs waited 5 months to seek leave to amend their theory of liability. APG argues

that it would be prejudiced by the amendment because to date all of its discovery has focused

on plaintiffs’ respondeat superior claim. They contend that a new claim of negligent hiring

and retention would require completely new discovery. They note that a number of key

depositions have already been taken, including that of Dr. Collins, without any questioning

on the theory of negligent hiring. Defendants contend that adding a new claim at this stage

of the litigation will result in an undue burden and will require additional time and expense

for new and repeated depositions. 

The deadline to amend the complaint was July 1, 2011. Although certain specified

Rule 16 deadlines were extended by 90 days, the deadline to amend the complaint was not.

This case is old. Discovery closes in 6 weeks. Plaintiffs have not presented good cause for

further upsetting the Rule 16 scheduling order. 

Case 3:10-cv-08157-FJM Document 215 Filed 11/30/11 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

- 3 -

IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiffs’ motion to file a second amended complaint

(doc. 165). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING APG’s motion to file a sur-reply

(doc. 194).

DATED this 30th day of November, 2011.

Case 3:10-cv-08157-FJM Document 215 Filed 11/30/11 Page 3 of 3