Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01786/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01786-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

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

JUAN JACOB DE LA TORRE and 

ZALEEYA DE LA TORRE, 

individually and as decedent 

Juan De La Torre’s successors 

in interest, minors by and 

through Guardian Ad Litem, 

VIVICA GONZALEZ; VIVICA 

GONZALEZ, an individual, and 

GRACIELA ARELLANO, an 

individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, 

a publicly traded Delaware 

corporation; SWIFT 

TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, LLC, 

a Delaware Limited Liability 

Company; SWIFT TRANSPORTATION 

CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC, a 

Delaware Limited Liability 

Company; INTERSTATE EQUIPMENT 

LEASING, LLC, a Delaware 

Limited Liability Company; 

EDWARD GREER, JR., an 

individual; SWIFT LEASING 

CO., LLC (DOE NO. 1); FIERRO 

TRUCKING II, LLC (DOE NO. 2), 

and DOES 3 through 50, 

inclusive,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-01786-GEB-DAD

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS LEAVE 

TO FILE A THIRD AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs seek leave under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure (“Rule”) 15(a)(2), inter alia, to file and serve the

Third Amended Complaint attached to their motion. Specifically, 

Case 2:13-cv-01786-GEB-DAD Document 28 Filed 11/14/13 Page 1 of 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

27

28

2

Plaintiffs seek to “add Jose Angel Martinez as a Defendant in 

this matter, and . . . additional allegations regarding the 

relationship between the parties.” (Pls.’ Mot. to Amend Second 

Am. Compl. 2:13-16, ECF No. 17.) Plaintiffs assert Mr. Martinez 

“is the owner, operator, and/or sole member of Defendant Fierro 

Trucking II, LLC,” which is already a party in this action. (Id.

3:7-9.) Plaintiffs also argue that Mr. Martinez had supervisory 

responsibility over the operator of the tractor-trailer involved

in the collision that caused Plaintiffs’ damages. (Id. 3:9-10.)

Defendants oppose the motion with conclusory arguments, 

contending that Plaintiffs unduly delayed seeking amendment 

because they “have known about [Mr. Martinez] since the outset of 

the litigation,” and the amendment sought is “futile” because 

“Fierro Trucking II, LLC,” the company Plaintiffs argue Mr. 

Martinez owns, “is already a named defendant in this action.” 

(Defs.’ Opp’n to Mot. for Leave to Amend 3:11-12, 3:16-17 ECF No. 

22.)

Rule 15(a)(2) prescribes: “[t]he court should freely 

grant leave [to amend a pleading] when justice so requires.” 

“This [amendment] policy is to be applied with extreme 

liberality.” C.F. ex rel. Farnan v. Capistrano Unified Sch. 

Dist., 654 F.3d 975, 985 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Eminence 

Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 

2003)). “District courts generally consider four factors in 

determining whether to deny a motion to amend: ‘bad faith, undue 

delay, prejudice to the opposing party, and the futility of 

amendment.’” In re Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd., 642 F.3d 685, 701

(9th Cir. 1994)(quoting and citing Kaplan v. Rose, 49 F.3d 1363, 

Case 2:13-cv-01786-GEB-DAD Document 28 Filed 11/14/13 Page 2 of 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

27

28

3

1370 (9th Cir. 1994)). “Courts may decline to grant leave to 

amend only if there is strong evidence of ‘undue delay, bad faith 

or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to 

cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue 

prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the 

amendment, [or] futility of amendment, etc.’” Sonoma County Ass'n 

of Retired Employees v. Sonoma County, 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th 

Cir. 2013)(citing and quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 

(1962)). Defendants’ conclusory arguments regarding undue delay 

and futility are devoid of evidence sufficient to justify denying 

Plaintiffs’ motion.

Therefore, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED, and 

Plaintiffs have five (5) days leave from the date on which this 

Order is filed to file the Third Amended Complaint attached to 

their motion. 

Dated: November 13, 2013

Case 2:13-cv-01786-GEB-DAD Document 28 Filed 11/14/13 Page 3 of 3