Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08190/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08190-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 450
Nature of Suit: Interstate Commerce
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment

---

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

WO 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Knight Brokerage, LLC, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

H.D. Buttercup Rugs, LLC, doing business as 

Exquisite Rugs; Krieger American Transportation 

Company, LLC; Express Trans Inc.; Double J 

Truck Repair Inc., and Allianz Global Risks US 

Insurance Company, doing business as Allianz 

Global Corporate and Specialty North America, 

 Defendants. 

No. CV-11-08190-PCT-GMS 

ORDER 

Krieger American Transportation Company, LLC, 

 Cross-Claimant, 

 vs. 

Knight Brokerage, LLC; H.D. Buttercup Rugs, 

LLC, doing business as Exquisite Rugs; Express 

Trans Inc.; Double J Truck Repair, Inc., and 

Allianz Global Risks US Insurance Company, 

doing business as Allianz Global Corporate and 

Specialty North America, 

 Cross-Defendants. 

Case 3:11-cv-08190-GMS Document 87 Filed 10/25/12 Page 1 of 4
-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

Krieger American Transportation Company, LLC, 

 Third-Party Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

Knight Transportation, Inc. and Knight Port 

Services, LLC, 

 Third-Party Defendants. 

 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Knight Brokerage, LLC’s Motion to Amend 

Complaint to Join Additional Plaintiffs. (Doc. 78.) For the reasons stated below, 

Plaintiff’s Motion is granted. 

 Plaintiff Knight Brokerage wishes to amend its Complaint to add as additional 

plaintiffs its related entities Knight Port Services LLP (“KPS”) and Knight 

Transportation, Inc. (Id. at 2.) One of the defendants in this action, Krieger American 

Transportation Company (“KATCO”), has brought counterclaims against KPS and 

Knight Transportation. (Doc. 39 at 8–12.) Thus, KPS and Knight Transportation are 

already third-party defendants to this action. 

 Knight Brokerage wishes to join these additional plaintiffs under Rule 20 

because (1) their claims arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of 

transactions or occurences, and (2) there is at least one common question of law or fact 

linking all of them. Knight Brokerage has demonstrated in its motion that the two 

potential plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory relief arise out of the same occurrence, the 

September 17, 2011 accident, that gave rise to Knight Brokerage’s claims. Knight 

Brokerage has further demonstrated that all three Knight entities are “seeking 

declaratory relief to determine which Knight entities were involved.” Thus, since both 

elements of Rule 20 are satisfied, permissive joinder of plaintiffs is to be liberally 

granted. League to Save Lake Tahoe v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 558 F.2d 914, 

917 (9th Cir. 1977). 

Case 3:11-cv-08190-GMS Document 87 Filed 10/25/12 Page 2 of 4
-3- 

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

 Defendant Allianz Global Corporate and Specialty (“ACGS”), however, opposes 

the Motion to Amend. (Doc. 80.) ACGS contends that leave to amend should be denied 

based on the five factors set out by the Ninth Circuit for determining when to grant such 

leave. (Id. at 3.) The factors are bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, 

futility of amendment, and whether plaintiff has previously amended its complaint. 

Ascon Prop., Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989). 

 ACGS contends that the fact that Knight Brokerage previously amended its 

complaint twice without adding the two currently proposed plaintiffs is evidence of its 

bad faith. However, Knight Brokerage explains in its reply that it was not aware that the 

other Knight entities were to be implicated in the current proceeding until (1) KATCO 

counterclaimed against KPS and Knight Transportation and (2) ACGS filed a complaint 

against KPS. (Doc. 81 at 5.) Thus, this factor does not favor denying leave to amend. 

 ACGS also contends that granting Knight Brokerage leave to amend will create 

undue delay and prejudice ACGS. Adding two plaintiffs who are already parties to the 

current action, one of whom is named in ACGS’s related matter, does not create so 

much undue delay that the liberal standard in favor of granting permissive joinder is 

overcome. Furthermore, Knight Brokerage moved for leave to amend within the 

deadline for amendment in the Case Management Order. (See Doc. 72.) Its motion is 

therefore presumptively timely and will not cause undue delay. Nor does it seem that 

ACGS will be prejudiced by the adding of two parties, one of whom, as stated above, 

has already been sued by ACGS. These factors do not favor denying leave to amend. 

 ACGS does not argue that Knight Brokerage’s proposed amendment in this case 

will be futile. This factor, therefore, does not favor denying leave to amend. Conversely, 

no one disputes that Knight Brokerage has previously amended its Complaint twice. 

This is the sole factor favoring denial. As such, the five factors do not counsel against 

granting leave to amend. 

Case 3:11-cv-08190-GMS Document 87 Filed 10/25/12 Page 3 of 4
-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

 ACGS also makes an argument that this case should be transferred to the Central 

District of California in its Response. (Doc. 80 at 7.) ACGS’s Motion to Transfer has 

already been denied, and it does not make new arguments in this Response. (See Doc. 

85.) Furthermore, the factors for transferring venue are not relevant to the determination 

of whether to grant leave to amend. The Court thus will not consider ACGS’s argument 

for transfer in deciding this Motion to Amend. 

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Amend of Plaintiff Knight Brokerage, LLC 

is GRANTED (Doc. 78.). Plaintiff is directed to file and serve the amended complaint 

within seven (7) days from the date of this Order. 

 Dated this 25th day of October, 2012. 

Case 3:11-cv-08190-GMS Document 87 Filed 10/25/12 Page 4 of 4