Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01980/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01980-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

David K. Everson and Patricia M.

Everson, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

David D. Everson, Individually and as

President and Director of Mandalay

Homes, Inc.; Kristy Everson, aka Kristy

Dryja, wife of David D. Everson; and

Mandalay Homes, Inc.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-1980-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Second Amended

Complaint (Doc. 135) and Motion to Deem Admissions (Doc. 136). Both motions are denied

for the reasons set forth below.

Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint

Plaintiffs again seek to file a second amended complaint after this Court has already

determined in an Order dated November 24, 2010, that they have not demonstrated any

reason for the Court to believe that they have not been long aware of the parties they now

seek to add or that any of the facts that they seek to add have been diligently pursued or were

newly discovered. As Plaintiffs acknowledge, there must be good cause to amend a

scheduling order prior to receiving an amendment allowing a late amendment to a scheduling

order. “Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification

Case 2:08-cv-01980-GMS Document 138 Filed 12/15/10 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 -

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 v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).

In this case, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated diligence in seeking to amend their

complaint and seeking to discover the facts on which they now claim justify amendment.

This Court has already determined that they have not been diligent and have no reason why

these facts were only lately discovered, nor has the Court determined any evidence of their

diligence. Rather, Plaintiffs’ actions seem principally designed to harass Defendants and the

Court through the repeated requests for the Court to reconsider its determinations even after

such requests have been denied, and the repeated renewals of the motions have been denied.

Therefore, again because Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate diligence or good cause

this Court will not amend its Scheduling Order to permit late amendment to the complaint.

Nor will the Court permit late amendment to its Scheduling Order to add parties or factual

allegations when there is no apparent reason that the facts were not previously discovered

and previously alleged, particularly at this late date in the litigation.

Motion to Deem Admissions

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Deem Admissions is denied as the request to the admissions were

timely filed.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

1. Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint

(Doc. 135).

2. Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Deem Admissions (Doc. 136).

DATED this 15th day of December, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-01980-GMS Document 138 Filed 12/15/10 Page 2 of 2