Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00072/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00072-1/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 

Phillip Seldon,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Edward Magedson a/k/a Ed Magedson; 

et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-13-0072 PHX DGC

ORDER 

 Defendant Xcentric Ventures LLC (“Xcentric”) has filed a motion to strike the 

second amended complaint. Doc. 23. Pro se Plaintiff filed a response to the motion 

(Doc. 24), and a cross-motion seeking in the alternative leave of Court to file a second 

amended complaint (Doc. 25). Defendants Xcentric and Edward Magedson filed a 

response to Plaintiff’s cross-motion. Doc. 26. No party has requested oral argument. 

For the reasons discussed below, the Court will grant the motion to strike and deny 

Plaintiff’s cross-motion. 

 Plaintiff filed a complaint on January 1, 2013. Doc. 1. On March 13, 2012, 

Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. Doc. 11. The Court’s Case Management Order, 

entered May 17, 2013, established a deadline for amending pleadings and adding parties: 

2. Deadline for Joining Parties, Amending Pleadings, and Filing 

Supplemental Pleadings. The deadline for joining parties, amending 

pleadings, and filing supplemental pleadings is 30 days from the date of 

this Order. 

Case 2:13-cv-00072-SPL Document 27 Filed 09/19/13 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

Doc. 18 at 1. The 30-day deadline expired on June 17, 2013. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1). 

Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on that day. Doc. 22. 

 Defendant Xcentric’s motion argues that the Court should strike the second 

amended complaint because Plaintiff filed it without “the opposing party’s written 

consent or the court’s leave” as required by Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. Doc. 23 at 1. In response, Plaintiff argues that the case management order 

“made no mention that permission had to be obtained in order to make the amendment,” 

and that Plaintiff “previously amended [his] complaint with no objection or consent on 

the part of [Defendant Xcentric’s counsel] and as such had no knowledge that court 

permission was required.” Doc. 24 at 1. 

Pro se litigants are bound by the rules of civil procedure. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 

F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure 

that govern other litigants.”). The Court’s order setting the Rule 16 case management 

conference so advised Plaintiff. See Doc. 14 at 6 (“The parties are expected to comply 

fully with the Federal and Local Rules of Civil Procedure[.]”). In addition, during the 

Case Management Conference held on May 9, 2013 (Doc. 17), the Court advised Plaintiff 

that he should obtain a current copy of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and follow 

all court orders. As a result, Plaintiff’s assertion that he lacked knowledge of 

Rule 15(a)’s requirements is not well taken. Because Plaintiff filed the second amended 

complaint in violation of Rule 15(a)(2), the Court will grant Defendant’s motion to strike. 

 In his cross-motion, Plaintiff argues that he had no knowledge of Rule 15(a)(2), 

that the second amended complaint does not prejudice Defendants, and that it asserts 

valid claims. Doc. 25 at 2-3. In response, Defendants submit that the Court should deny 

Plaintiff leave for the following reasons: (1) Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause to 

modify the case management order as required by Rule 16(b)(4); (2) Plaintiff did not file 

a redline version of the second amended complaint indicating how it differs from the first 

amended complaint as required by Local Rule 15.1(a); and (3) the substance of Plaintiff’s 

amendment is futile. Doc. 26 at 2. 

Case 2:13-cv-00072-SPL Document 27 Filed 09/19/13 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

 Deadlines established in case management orders may “be modified only for good 

cause[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 

604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992) (“The scheduling order ‘controls the subsequent course of the 

action’ unless modified by the court.”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(a)). Good cause exists 

when a deadline “cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the 

amendment.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609; see also Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 

1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff does not argue diligence or good cause. Rather, he 

argues that the amendment is valid and will not cause prejudice. These arguments are not 

relevant. In determining whether to extend a Rule 16 deadline, the focus is on the 

diligence of the moving party, not the absence of prejudice. “Although the existence or 

degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification might supply additional 

reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for 

seeking modification. If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” Johnson, 

975 F.2d at 609 (citation omitted). Plaintiff does not argue that he was diligent, and the 

Court concludes that the amendment deadline could have been met through reasonable 

diligence. The Court therefore will deny the cross-motion for leave to amend. 

 Plaintiff again is advised that although he is proceeding pro se, he must become 

familiar with and follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules. See 

King, 814 F.2d at 567; Carter v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th 

Cir. 1986) (“Although pro se, [plaintiff] is expected to abide by the rules of the court in 

which he litigates.”). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are available at the following 

Internet website: www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/. A copy of the Court’s Local Rules of 

Civil Procedure may be obtained in the Clerk’s Office and are available online at the 

Court’s Internet website: www.azd.uscourts.gov (follow hyperlink titled “Rules, General 

Orders & Forms”). Plaintiff is further advised that if he fails to prosecute this action or 

comply with the rules or any Court order, the Court may dismiss the action with prejudice 

pursuant to Rule 41(b). See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Case 2:13-cv-00072-SPL Document 27 Filed 09/19/13 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

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 

 IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendant’s motion to strike the second amended complaint (Doc. 23) is 

granted. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion seeking leave to file second amended complaint 

(Doc. 25) is denied. 

Dated this 19th day of September, 2013. 

Case 2:13-cv-00072-SPL Document 27 Filed 09/19/13 Page 4 of 4