Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00595/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00595-0/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

Estate of Joseph J. Studnek, by and

through its Personal Representative,

Joseph M. Studnek, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Ambassador of Global Missions

Unlimited, and his Successor, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV-04-0595-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to amend the First Amended Complaint. (Doc.

67). Plaintiff is seeking leave to name additional defendants identified as follows: Monica

C. Cisneros; Michael Cambra and Gloria Cambra, husband and wife; Joel David and Cindy

David, husband and wife; El Shaddai Ministries and his Successors, a Corporation Sole, a

Nevada Corporation; Second Chance Christian Evangelistic Ministries, a California

corporation; Bishop of Faith Vision Noble House and His Successors, a California

corporation; and Keith Aaron Vann and Trisha Vann, husband and wife. Plaintiff summarily

states that these additional defendants are needed for just adjudication and that complete

relief cannot be accorded among those already parties, citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 15 and 19.

Plaintiff has attached with the motion a proposed Second Amended Complaint that indicates

the proposed amendments to the First Amended Complaint. See LRCiv. 15.1(a)(1). 

Case 2:04-cv-00595-MHM Document 68 Filed 11/10/05 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 -

Plaintiff appears to rely on Fed.R.Civ.P. 19(a) which provides in relevant part for

joinder of a party who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the

court of subject matter jurisdiction if in the person's absence complete relief cannot be

accorded among those already parties. Plaintiff's motion to file the Second Amended

Complaint was filed on September 28, 2005, the date set in the Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 Scheduling

Order as the deadline for filing motions to amend the complaint and to add additional parties.

No response in opposition to Plaintiff's motion for leave to file Second Amended Complaint

has been filed. 

Leave to file an amended pleading under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) "shall be freely given

when justice so requires" and this policy "'is to be applied with extreme liberality.'" Owens

v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001)(quoting Morongo

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

be drawn "in favor of granting the motion" to amend. Griggs v. Pace American Group, Inc.,

170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999). Rule 21, Fed.R.Civ.P., provides in relevant part that

parties may be dropped or added "by order of the court on motion of any party ... at any stage

of the action and on such terms as are just." Courts generally have applied the same

equitable considerations in determining joinder or amendment. Heslop v. UCB, Inc., 175 F.

Supp. 2d 1310, 1316-17 (D.Kan. 2001). 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the First Amended

Complaint (Doc. 67) is granted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a properly signed original

Second Amended Complaint within five (5) days of the filing date of this Order. See LRCiv.

15.1(2) & (3). 

DATED this 8th day of November, 2005.

Case 2:04-cv-00595-MHM Document 68 Filed 11/10/05 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

- 3 -

Case 2:04-cv-00595-MHM Document 68 Filed 11/10/05 Page 3 of 3