Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01553/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01553-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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 notes that the stipulation fails to state what the purpose of

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert R. and Deborah L. Macy, 

Plaintiffs,

vs.

Western Imperial 2000, LLC,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-1553-PHX-PGR

 

 ORDER

In an order entered on August 21, 2007 (doc. #43), wherein the Court in

part denied the plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion, the Court ordered the

parties to file their Joint Pretrial Statement by November 9, 2007 and set the

Pretrial Conference for December 10, 2007. Pending before the Court is the

parties’ overly succinct Stipulation to Amend Pleadings and Regarding Discovery,

filed September 27, 2007. For the reasons set forth below, the Court rejects the

stipulation in its entirety.

The parties stipulate in part, without explanation, that the plaintiffs’

complaint may be amended to add a third count for rescission, notwithstanding

that the deadline set by the Scheduling Order (doc. #13) for amending pleadings

was September 15, 2006.1

 Such a stipulation is improper at this point in the

Case 2:06-cv-01553-PGR Document 48 Filed 10/11/07 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

the proposed amendment is, and that the proposed amended complaint violates

LRCiv 15.1(a) because it fails to underline the text to be added. The Court further

notes that the parties’ stipulation and the plaintiffs’ proposed pleadings violate

LRCiv 7.1(a)(3) by improperly capitalizing the parties’ names in the captions.

2

 The proposed amended complaint is also improper in that it makes

claims on behalf of plaintiff Robert Macy notwithstanding that he is now

deceased. The Court still has no information before it about the status of Mr.

Macy’s estate or its relationship to the claims in this action. The Court notes that

the plaintiffs’ Suggestion of Death (doc. #44) failed to comply with that portion of

the Court’s order (doc. #43), entered on August 21, 2007, that specifically

required the plaintiffs’ notice of Mr. Macy’s death to “state the date of Mr. Macy’s

death and whether Mrs. Macy shall remain the sole plaintiff or whether there is

expected to be a substitution of a new plaintiff for Mr. Macy.” 

- 2 -

proceedings because paragraph 9 of the Scheduling Order specifically informed

the parties that any request to change a deadline set by the order had to be by

motion and not by stipulation, and, more importantly, because any request to

amend the complaint now is governed by the “good cause” standard of

Fed.R.Civ.P. 16, not by the liberal amendment standard of Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a).

Coleman v. Quarker Oats Co,, 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000); Johnson

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992). Under Rule

16(b), the plaintiffs must show good cause for not having amended their

complaint before the time specified in the Scheduling Order, Coleman, 232 F.3d

at 1294, and they have made no effort to do so.2

The parties also stipulate that discovery and disclosure may be extended

through November 30, 2007, although without mentioning on what subject and

without making any effort to explain why the Court should allow it. As the

stipulation alludes, the discovery deadline was November 3, 2006, and the Court

has not been presented with any reason to now reopen discovery.

The parties further stipulate, again without explanation, that the plaintiffs

Case 2:06-cv-01553-PGR Document 48 Filed 10/11/07 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

 Although the designation of the plaintiffs in the proposed third-party

complaint differs from that of the proposed amended complaint in that the former

states that it is being brought by “Deborah L. Macy, for herself and on behalf of

Robert R. Macy, deceased”, the Court notes that it cannot tell from the record

whether the proposed third-party complaint is being brought in the name of the

real party in interest as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(a) given the lack of

information about the status of Mr. Macy’s estate.

 The Court further notes that the proposed third-party complaint does not

allege any basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. To the extent that the

plaintiffs are attempting to rely on this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction, there is

no supplemental jurisdiction in diversity of citizenship cases over claims by

plaintiffs against persons made parties under Fed.R.Civ.P. 14. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1367(b).

- 3 -

may file a third-party complaint to allege breach of contract and negligence claims

against Choice Realty, L.L.C. and Guy Hurst and Jane Doe Hurst, presumably

pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 14(b) which provides that “[w]hen a counterclaim is

asserted against a plaintiff, the plaintiff may cause a third party to be brought in

under the circumstances which under this rule would entitle a defendant to do

so.”3

 Such a stipulation is improper if for no other reason than because a third

party complaint may not now be filed without leave of the Court since more than

ten days have past since the plaintiffs filed their original reply to the defendant’s

counterclaim, as well as their reply to the defendant’s amended counterclaim. 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 14(a); cf. Southwest Administrators, Inc. v. Rozay’s Transfer, 791

F.2d 769, 777 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1065 (1987) (“If the thirdparty complaint is not filed within ten days after the defendant’s original answer is

served, then ... the defendant must ask the trial court for leave to implead.”) The

plaintiffs have not filed the required motion, much less made any effort to explain

why a third-party complaint should be allowed at this late date in the litigation.

See Southwest Administrators, 791 F.2d at 777 (“The decision whether to

Case 2:06-cv-01553-PGR Document 48 Filed 10/11/07 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

- 4 -

implead a third-party defendant is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial

court. ... It is not an abuse of discretion to deny an application for impleader

where it will disadvantage the existing action.”) Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ Stipulation to Amend Pleadings and

Regarding Discovery (doc. #47) is rejected.

DATED this 11th day of October, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01553-PGR Document 48 Filed 10/11/07 Page 4 of 4