Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-02005/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-02005-1/pdf.json

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

1

 The Court finds the failure of defendant Foster's counsel, Gove Allen, to

respond to the plaintiff's motion to be entirely unacceptable. Mr. Allen is admonished

- 1 -

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Scott Kenton, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CV-04-2005-PCT-PGR

)

vs. )

) ORDER and OPINION

Linda Foster, )

)

 Defendant. )

 )

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint, filed

September 27, 2006, wherein the plaintiff seeks to amend his breach of contract

complaint against Linda Foster pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) to add a quiet title

claim against a new defendant, Donald Van Pelt. Notwithstanding that defendant

Foster has failed to respond to the motion in any manner and her time for doing

so under LRCiv 7.2(c) has expired, the Court finds that the motion should be

denied.1

Case 3:04-cv-02005-PGR Document 46 Filed 10/26/06 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

that it is his responsibility as counsel of record to timely respond to every motion filed by

the opposing party, even if the response is to state that his client does not oppose the

motion or takes no position on the motion.

- 2 -

The plaintiff's motion is the result of the Court's order (doc. #44) resolving

the plaintiff's summary judgment motion. In that order, the Court noted that it

could not enter summary judgment awarding specific performance to the plaintiff

in part because he had not established that the defendant still owned the real

property at issue, which is a requirement under Arizona law for the issuance of an

order compelling specific performance; the Court further noted that it appeared

from its Internet search of the public records in Mohave County that the current

listed owner of the property at issue is Mr. Van Pelt. 

The plaintiff argues that he is entitled to amend his complaint under Rule

15 because the lack of the proposed amendment will likely mean that he will be

unable to recover possession of the real property even if the Court orders specific

performance, which will force him to commence a separate quiet title suit against

Mr. Van Pelt.

Since the plaintiff is seeking to amend his complaint some 14 months after

the Court's deadline for doing so, see Scheduling Order (doc. #19) (setting

August 1, 2005 as the deadline for amending pleadings), a fact inexplicably not

noted by the plaintiff in his motion, the resolution of the plaintiff's motion is

governed by the more exacting "good cause" standard of Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b), not

the liberal amendment standard of Rule 15(a) relied upon by the plaintiff. Johnson

v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992); accord,

Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. denied,

533 U.S. 950 (2001). Under the Rule 16(b) standard, the plaintiff must establish

Case 3:04-cv-02005-PGR Document 46 Filed 10/26/06 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 - 3 -

good cause for not having amended his complaint before the deadline specified

in the Scheduling Order, which requires that he show his diligence in seeking the

amendment. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609; Coleman, 232 F.3d at 1294. 

The Court concludes that the plaintiff, who does not discuss Rule 16 in his

memorandum, has not established the good cause required by the Rule 16(b)

standard. The only portion of his motion relevant to the issue of diligence is his

conclusory statement in a footnote that his ability to discover the facts and move

to amend sooner was frustrated by the defendant's refusal to provide a disclosure

statement and timely submit discovery responses and by her refusal to appear for

her deposition. The Court is unpersuaded by this because discovery from the

defendant was not necessary to the plaintiff's ability to learn of the quitclaim

deeds underlying his proposed quiet title claim amendment. That information

was available prior to the pleading amendment deadline to anyone performing an

Internet search of Mohave County records pertaining to the real property at issue. 

According to those records, the plaintiff first quitclaimed her interest in the

property on March 25, 2004, and that transaction was recorded on May 12, 2004,

both of which occurred several months before this action was even commenced. 

The plaintiff's apparent failure to conduct a real property title search in an action

seeking specific performance simply does not constitute the diligence required by

Rule 16(b). See Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 ("[C]arelessness is not compatible with

a finding of diligence [for Rule 16(b) purposes] and offers no reason for a grant of

relief.") The plaintiff's failure to establish the required diligence ends the Court's

Case 3:04-cv-02005-PGR Document 46 Filed 10/26/06 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

2

 Furthermore, adding the new proposed claim and defendant now would

result in this two-year old case in effect having to start over, notwithstanding that it is

close to having a trial date set since the parties' Joint Pretrial Statement is due on

November 6, 2006 and the final pretrial conference is set for December 4, 2006. 

Coleman, 232 F.3d at 1295 (Court noted that the prejudice stemming a need to reopen

discovery and therefore delay the proceedings supports a denial under Rule 16(b) of a

delayed motion to amend the complaint.)

- 4 -

"good cause" inquiry. Id.; Coleman, 232 F.3d at 1295.2 Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint (doc. #45) is

denied pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b).

DATED this 25th day of October, 2006.

Case 3:04-cv-02005-PGR Document 46 Filed 10/26/06 Page 4 of 4