Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00295/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00295-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:2301 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

MICHELLE CAVEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

AUTOTIME MOTORS; JEFFREY

ERCOLINI; KELLY ERCOLINI; 

CREDIT ACCEPTANCE 

CORPORATION; AMERICAN SAFETY 

CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendants.

AMERICAN SAFETY CASUALTY 

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Cross-claimant,

v.

JEFFREY ERCOLINI, an

individual and dba AUTOTIME 

MOTORS; KELLY ERCOLINI, an 

individual and dba AUTOTIME 

MOTORS,

Cross-defendants.

CIV. NO. 2:15-295 WBS EFB

ORDER

Plaintiff Michelle Caven brought this action against 

Case 2:15-cv-00295-WBS-EFB Document 42 Filed 05/24/16 Page 1 of 5
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

defendants Jeffrey and Kelly Ercolini, individually and doing 

business as Autotime Motors (collectively, “Autotime”), and their 

surety insurer under a motor vehicle dealer bond, American Safety 

Casualty Insurance Company (“ASI”), arising out of Autotime’s 

allegedly fraudulent sale of a defective vehicle. (Docket No. 

1.)1 ASI subsequently filed a cross-complaint against Autotime 

for indemnity and related causes of action. (Docket No. 16.)2 

On July 17, 2015, the court entered a Status (Pretrial 

Scheduling) Order stating that further joinder of parties or 

amendments to the pleadings were prohibited “except with leave of 

court, good cause having been shown under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 16(b).” (Docket No. 33.) The matter is now before the 

court on ASI’s motion to amend its cross-complaint pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. (Docket No. 37.) ASI seeks

to name an additional cross-complainant and add new claims for 

statutory interpleader and declaratory relief against plaintiff 

and five additional cross-defendants. (Id.) 

Plaintiff and Autotime have not filed oppositions or 

statements of non-opposition to ASI’s motion. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 

230(c). Having read ASI’s brief and in light of the absence of 

any opposition to its motion, the court concludes that oral 

argument is unnecessary. The court will therefore vacate the 

hearing set for May 31, 2016 and take the matter under submission 

 

1 Plaintiff also filed this action against Credit 

Acceptance Corporation (“CAC”), which financed her purchase of 

the vehicle under a consumer credit contract. Plaintiff later 

settled with CAC and dismissed her claims against CAC with 

prejudice. (Docket Nos. 19, 21-23.)

2 On July 17, 2015, Autotime filed a voluntary bankruptcy 

petition under Chapter 13. (Docket No. 35.)

Case 2:15-cv-00295-WBS-EFB Document 42 Filed 05/24/16 Page 2 of 5
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

pursuant to Local Rule 230(g).

“Once the district court ha[s] filed a pretrial 

scheduling order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16,” 

Rule 16’s standards control. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607–08 (9th Cir. 1992). A party’s motion to 

amend its pleading is then considered as a motion to amend the 

scheduling order, despite the fact that no formal motion to amend 

the scheduling order was made. Id. at 608-09. Because the court 

already issued its Scheduling Order in this case, ASI must first 

demonstrate “good cause” for modifying the Scheduling Order 

pursuant to Rule 16(b). See id. If good cause is shown, the 

court must then evaluate ASI’s motion for leave to amend under 

Rule 15(a)(2). See id.

“Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers 

the diligence of the party seeking amendment.” Id. at 609. “If 

that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” Id. ASI

represents that it has received numerous claims on the surety 

bond it issued on behalf of Autotime, including a lawsuit to 

recover on the bond filed in the California Superior Court in

Orange County. (Tomlin Decl. ¶¶ 6-7, Ex. B (Docket No. 37-1).) 

ASI was served with the complaint in that lawsuit on March 10, 

2016. (Id.) The same day, ASI wrote a letter to plaintiff and 

Autotime seeking a stipulation for the filing of its amended 

cross-complaint. (Id. ¶ 10, Ex. D.) ASI represents that 

plaintiff indicated its non-opposition to ASI’s amendment and 

that Autotime did not provide a response. (Id. ¶ 11.) ASI then 

filed this motion on April 4, 2016.

Based on these facts, the court is satisfied that ASI 

Case 2:15-cv-00295-WBS-EFB Document 42 Filed 05/24/16 Page 3 of 5
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

was reasonably diligent in alerting the other parties of its 

intention to file an amended cross-complaint. ASI was also 

reasonably diligent in proceeding with its formal motion because

it filed this motion less than one month after receiving notice 

of the state court action on the surety bond. Accordingly, the 

court finds ASI has demonstrated good cause under Rule 16. See

Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609.

The court must next determine whether ASI’s request for 

leave to amend its cross-complaint satisfies the requirements of 

Rule 15. See id. at 608. Rule 15(a)(2) provides that the “court 

should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Four factors are commonly used to 

determine the propriety of a motion for leave to amend: bad 

faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, and futility 

of amendment. DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 

(9th Cir. 1987).

“The party opposing amendment bears the burden of 

showing prejudice.” Id. at 187. Plaintiff does not oppose ASI’s 

motion, and Autotime will not be affected by the addition of 

ASI’s new claims because Autotime will not be a party to those 

claims. ASI’s amendment will thus not prejudice the other 

parties in this action. The court also does not find bad faith, 

futility of amendment, or undue delay resulting from the 

amendment. Accordingly, because ASI has satisfied the 

requirements under Rules 16 and 15, the court will grant ASI’s 

motion to amend its cross-complaint.

ASI’s proposed amended cross-complaint filed with its 

motion incorporates by reference ASI’s original cross-complaint. 

Case 2:15-cv-00295-WBS-EFB Document 42 Filed 05/24/16 Page 4 of 5
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

5

(Tomlin Decl. Ex. C ¶ 6.) Local Rule 220 requires that an 

amended pleading be complete in itself and not incorporate by 

reference allegations or exhibits in the original pleading. See

E.D. Cal. L.R. 220 (“[E]very pleading to which an amendment . . .

has been allowed by court order shall be retyped and filed so 

that it is complete in itself without reference to the prior or 

superseded pleading.”). This is because an “amended complaint 

supersedes the original” and the latter is “treated thereafter as 

non-existent.” Valadez-Lopez v. Chertoff, 656 F.3d 851, 857 (9th 

Cir. 2011) (citation omitted).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

(1) cross-complainant American Safety Casualty 

Insurance Company’s motion for leave to file an amended crosscomplaint, (Docket No. 37), be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED;

(2) American Safety Casualty Insurance Company shall 

file its amended cross-complaint consistent with this Order 

within ten days from the date this Order is signed; and

(3) the hearing set for May 31, 2016 is hereby VACATED.

Dated: May 24, 2016

Case 2:15-cv-00295-WBS-EFB Document 42 Filed 05/24/16 Page 5 of 5