Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00222/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00222-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

William R. Webb, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Genuine Parts Company, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. cv-08-222-PHX-ROS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint

and Motion to Continue Time for Amendment of Pleadings (Doc. 23). Plaintiffs ask leave

to add as Defendants Bayco Products, Inc. and Balkamp, Inc., allegedly involved with the

manufacture and distribution, respectively, of the light at issue in this case. They also request

that the formal date for amendment of pleadings be extended an additional 60 days so that

they may locate and identify the Genuine Part Company (“GPC”) sales representatives they

believe were involved in the distribution of the light at issue to Plaintiff William Webb. 

After receipt of a responsive pleading or submission of a first amended complaint, a

plaintiff “may amend its pleadings only with the opposing party’s written consent or the

court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Because the Rules instruct the Court to “freely give

leave when justice so requires,” the burden is placed on the party opposing the amendment.

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

Case 2:08-cv-00222-ROS Document 40 Filed 11/03/08 Page 1 of 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

1

 Although placing the burden of proof on the opposing party in Rule 15 motions is not

settled law, the prevailing practice in this circuit supports such a rule. See e.g. ABM Industries, Inc.

v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 237 F.R.D. 225, 227 (N.D.Cal.2006) (“The party opposing the amendment

bears the burden of showing why the amendment should not be granted.”); Butler v. Robar Enter.’s,

Inc., 208 F.R.D. 621, 623 (C.D.Cal. 2002)(same); DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183,

187 (9th Cir. 1987) (“The party opposing amendment bears the burden of showing prejudice.”).

- 2 -

(holding Rule 15(a)(2) “is to be applied with extreme liberality.”).1

Defendants argue that “[t]here is no evidence that Balkamp or Genuine or any

employee of those companies had anything to do with the retractable light other than sell it,”

adding that “Arizona law holds that defendants are not liable if they are not at fault for a

plaintiffs’ alleged injury.” This, however, is a misreading of the Arizona Supreme Court’s

jurisprudence. The court has stated:

In a strict products liability action, every party in the chain of distribution of

a defective product has committed its own ‘actionable breach of legal duty.’

Fault is thus found because of what each tortfeasor did on its own – distribute

a defective product – rather than because of its relationship to other

wrongdoers. 

State Farm Ins. Cos. v. Premier Manufactured Sys., 172 P.3d 410, 415 (Ariz. 2007). While

Arizona does not recognize joint and several liability in the context of product liability

actions, that does not mean that each entity in the chain of distribution may not be liable in

their own right. Id. It is true that “[a]mong two or more persons strictly liable in tort who

are entitled to claim contribution against each other, the relative degree of fault of each is the

degree to which each contributed to the defect causing injury to the claimant.” A.R.S. § 12-

2509(C). However, the question of the degree of fault of each party in the chain of

distribution is not one to be settled at this stage of the lawsuit; any party within the chain has

committed an independent, actionable breach of legal duty. 

Given that it is not contested that Bayco and Balkamp are within the chain of

distribution, and given the liberality with which federal courts are to consider requests to

amend pleadings, Plaintiffs shall have leave to amend the pleadings to add Bayco and

Balkamp as defendants. 

Case 2:08-cv-00222-ROS Document 40 Filed 11/03/08 Page 2 of 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

2

 Defendant states in its pleadings that Plaintiffs had not, prior to filing this motion,

served a discovery request asking for (or even simply asked) for the name of that sales rep;

Plaintiffs do not contest that assertion. 

3

 Under the federal removal statute, the Court, just as in Rule 15(a)(2) motions, has

complete discretion to approve such a diversity-destroying joinder. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e)

(“If after removal the plaintiff seeks to join additional defendants whose joinder would

destroy subject matter jurisdiction, the court may deny joinder, or permit joinder and remand

the action to the State court.”) (emphasis added); Newcombe v. Adolf Coors Co., 157 F.3d

686, 691 (9th Cir. 1998) (“[T]he decision regarding joinder of a diversity destroyingdefendant [sic] is left to the discretion of the district court.”). However, the federal courts in

this district have generally not applied the standard Rule 15(a)(2) justice-fairness test to such

situations. When adjudicating a diversity-destroying amendment, Arizona federal courts, in

addition to applying variations of the Rule 15(a)(2) factors, have also examined the necessity

of joining the diversity-destroying party and any potential prejudice suffered by the plaintiff.

See e.g. Ansley v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 215 F.R.D. 575, 579-80 (D. Ariz.2003); Eaton

Veterinary Lab.’s, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Merch. Serv.’s, LLC, 2007 WL 2904171, 1 (D. Ariz.

2007); James Wm. Moore et al., 16 Moore’s Federal Practice § 107.41[2][d][i][B] at 107-

220.1 (3d ed. 2008). The Court will apply a similar balancing test to this case and examine

Plaintiff’s proposed joinder amendment for: (i) necessity of joinder; (ii) dilatory or other bad

faith motive; (iii) undue delay; (iv) prejudice to any party involved; (v) futility of amended

claims; and (vi) evidence of repeated failure to cure deficiencies.

- 3 -

Plaintiffs have, however, made no showing that the sales representatives who sold

Mr. Webb the light in question would be properly joined as defendants. Nor does it appear

that they made a diligent effort to discover the identity of the sales representative(s) in

question within the proper time frame.2

 Therefore, the Court sees it as unnecessary to extend

the deadline to amend the pleadings at this point in the case. Particularly where additional

defendants would destroy diversity,3

 leave to amend pleadings at a future date shall be

granted only due to extraordinary extenuating circumstances. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN

PART. Plaintiffs have leave to amend their complaint consistent with this order.

Case 2:08-cv-00222-ROS Document 40 Filed 11/03/08 Page 3 of 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 - 4 -

DATED this 3rd day of November, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00222-ROS Document 40 Filed 11/03/08 Page 4 of 4