Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02231/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02231-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

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

Roger C. Romero, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Wilson Elementary School District No. 7,

et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-2231-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a complaint in the Superior Court of

Maricopa County, State of Arizona, asserting a federal claim for violation of constitutional

rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law claims based on Arizona law. Defendants filed

an answer while the case was in state court and then removed the action to this Court based

on federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441 and the exercise of

supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The Court has entered a Scheduling Order

under Fed.R.Civ.P. 16. The Scheduling Order set April 28, 2006 as the date for filing

motions pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b), motions to amend the complaint and motions to join

additional parties. (Doc. 10). 

On April 28, 2006, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (Doc. 11). On the same date

the amended complaint was filed, Defendants filed a motion to strike the amended complaint

and jury trial demand. (Doc. 12). Plaintiff has filed a response opposing the motion to strike

Case 2:05-cv-02231-MHM Document 15 Filed 08/16/06 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

- 2 -

in which Plaintiff appears to join a motion for leave to file first amended complaint. (Doc.

13). Defendants have not filed a reply.

Defendants seek to strike the amended complaint because an answer has been filed

and Plaintiff did not seek leave to file the amended complaint and Defendants have not

consented to the amendment. Defendants also move to strike Plaintiff's jury trial demand set

forth in the amended complaint as not timely or properly made. 

Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 15(a) a party may amend the party's

pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served.

Otherwise a party may amend the party's pleading only by leave of court or by written

consent of the adverse party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). In addition, the Rule 16 Scheduling

Order set April 28, 2006 as the date for filing motions to file amended pleadings. An answer

has been filed. Plaintiff did not seek leave of Court before filing his amended complaint.

In his opposition response, Plaintiff states that he assumed there would be no

objection to the amended complaint and that he neglected to file a motion seeking leave to

amend. Plaintiff argues that leave to file an amended complaint should be freely given when

justice so requires. Plaintiff in his response appears to be seeking leave to file an amended

complaint by further contending that granting permission to file the amended complaint will

not prejudice the Defendants. 

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). The Court considers a motion requesting leave to amend

the complaint in the context of the relevant factors of bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the

opposing party, and/or futility. Owens, 244 F.3d at 712. Defendants have not filed a reply

that opposes Plaintiff's belated request to file an amended complaint. Under these

circumstances, and to prevent further delay of the proceedings, the Court will grant Plaintiff's

Case 2:05-cv-02231-MHM Document 15 Filed 08/16/06 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

- 3 -

belated motion to file an amended complaint. Defendants' motion to strike the amended

complaint based on lack of Defendants' consent and Plaintiff's failure to seek leave of Court

to file the amended pleading is denied. 

Plaintiff is required to comply with the Rule 16 Scheduling Order entered by this

Court. Plaintiff is reminded of the obligation to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District

of Arizona. The Court will require Plaintiff to comply with LRCiv 15.1 by filing a notice

that states in what way the amended complaint differs from the pleading which it amends and

by attaching as an exhibit to that notice a copy of the amended complaint which contains the

bracketed or stricken through text to be deleted and which underlines the text to be added.

Plaintiff shall file such notice and exhibit within five days of the filing date of this Order.

Defendants may file an appropriate response to the amended complaint on or before

September 8, 2006. 

Defendants have moved to strike Plaintiff's jury demand because the demand was

endorsed on the complaint filed in state court and failed to comply with Arizona Rules of

Civil Procedure 38. Arizona's Rule 38 provides that a jury demand may be made by serving

such demand on the other party and that the demand should not be endorsed on the pleading.

In contrast, Fed.R.Civ.P. 38(b) permits a jury trial demand to be "indorsed upon a pleading

of the party." Plaintiff's jury trial demand has been endorsed upon the amended complaint

and has been set forth in the body of the amended complaint at paragraph 117. 

Plaintiff has referred the Court to Lutz v. Glendale Union High School, 403 F.3d 1061

(9th Cir. 2005). In Lutz, the Ninth Circuit noted that the plaintiff would not have had to

request a jury trial after removal if her state complaint already contained a jury demand that

would have satisfied Fed.R.Civ.P. 38(b). Id., at 1064. The appellate court cited Mondor v.

United States Dist. Court, 910 F.2d 585, 587 (9th Cir. 1990), as holding that "[w]here a preremoved jury demand would satisfy federal ... requirements, that demand is incorporated into

the federal record upon removal, and is deemed to satisfy [Fed.R.Civ.P.] 38(b)." Id. As

mentioned, Defendants have not filed a reply to Plaintiff's response.

Case 2:05-cv-02231-MHM Document 15 Filed 08/16/06 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 -

Plaintiff's jury trial demand endorsed on his complaint filed in state court satisfies

Fed.R.Civ.P. 38(b). The demand was incorporated into the federal record upon removal.

Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiff's jury trial demand is denied. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiff's amended complaint and

jury trial demand (Doc. 12) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within five days of the filing date of this Order

Plaintiff shall file a notice that states in what way the amended complaint differs from the

pleading which it amends and by attaching as an exhibit to that notice a copy of the amended

complaint which contains the bracketed or stricken through text to be deleted and which

underlines the text to be added. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants may file an appropriate response to

the amended complaint no later than September 8, 2006. 

DATED this 15th day of August, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-02231-MHM Document 15 Filed 08/16/06 Page 4 of 4