Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00463/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00463-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lawrence Darwish
Defendant
Chadi Ghaith
Defendant
Inter123 Corporation
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Inter123 Corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Chadi Ghaith, 

Defendant.

No. CV-14-00463-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 

 Plaintiff Inter123 Corporation has filed a motion for leave to file a second 

amended complaint pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Doc. 40. Defendant Chadi Ghaith has not responded. The Court will grant the motion. 

 Rule 15 makes clear that the Court “should freely give leave [to amend] when 

justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The policy in favor of leave to amend must 

not only be heeded, see Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962), it must be applied 

with extreme liberality, see Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 880 

(9th Cir. 2001). This liberality “is not dependent on whether the amendment will add 

causes of action or parties.” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th 

Cir. 1987). The Court may deny a motion to amend if there is a showing of undue delay 

or bad faith on the part of the moving party, undue prejudice to the opposing party, or 

futility of the proposed amendment. See Foman, 371 U.S. at 182. Generally, however, 

“this determination should be performed with all inferences in favor of granting the 

motion.” Griggs v. Pace Am. Group, Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999). 

Case 2:14-cv-00463-DGC Document 42 Filed 05/28/14 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

27 

28 

 Plaintiff seeks to amend its complaint to add an additional claim against Mr. 

Ghaith for fraudulent conveyance under A.R.S. § 44-1004, and an additional defendant, 

Lawrence Darwish, to the fraudulent conveyance claim. Doc. 40 at 3. Because 

Defendant has not responded to the motion, there has been no showing of undue delay, 

bad faith, undue prejudice, or futility. The Court will therefore grant the motion. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion to amend (Doc. 40) is granted. Plaintiff shall file its 

amended complaint on or before June 3, 2014. 

 2. Plaintiff’s motion for ruling (Doc. 41) is denied as moot. 

 Dated this 28th day of May, 2014. 

Case 2:14-cv-00463-DGC Document 42 Filed 05/28/14 Page 2 of 2