THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066 

Phoenix, ,AZ 85060

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

Clifford P. Bendau, II (030204) Christopher J. Bendau (032981)

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066

Phoenix, Arizona 85018

Telephone: (480) 382-5176

Facsimile: (602) 956-1409

Email: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com

Robert S. Reder (024117)

BLYTHE GRACE PLLC

3260 North Hayden Road, Suite 103

Scottsdale, Arizona 85251

Telephone: (480) 663-8838

Facsimile: (480) 429-3679

Email: Robert@blythegrace.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

William J. Litzendorf,

 Plaintiff, 

vs.

Property Maintenance Solutions, LLC, and 

Arizona Limited Liability Company, Wallin

Holdings, LLC, an Arizona Limited Liability 

Company, Empire Capital, LLC, an Arizona 

Limited Liability Company, Mission Capital, 

LLC, an Arizona Limited Liability Company, 

James Wallin and Jane Doe Wallin, a married 

couple, Daniel Shreeve and Lindsay Shreeve, 

a married couple, B. Biggs and Jane Doe 

Biggs, a married couple, and Chad Cluff and 

Jane Doe Cluff, a married couple, 

 Defendants.

No. 2:16-CV-00271-GMS

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE 

TO FILE FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 15(a) and this Court’s July 22, 

2016, Rule 16 Scheduling Order (Dkt. 26), Plaintiff requests that this Court grant his Motion 

for Leave to File the attached First Amended Complaint (Attached as Exhibit A). A redline 

version that compares the Amended Complaint to the original Complaint is attached as 

"Exhibit B." The following Memorandum of Points and Authorities supports this Motion.

Case 2:16-cv-00271-GMS Document 33 Filed 09/15/16 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

27

28

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066 

Phoenix, AZ 85060

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I. Plaintiff has met the standard for obtaining leave to file an amended 

complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), “a party may amend its 

pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court 

should freely give leave when justice so requires.” The decision whether to grant leave to 

amend a pleading is within the sound discretion of the district court, but “a court should 

liberally allow a party to amend its pleading...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), quoting Forman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 

In light of new information discovered by Plaintiff subsequent to the filing of the 

original Complaint, good cause for amending the Complaint is immediately apparent. 

Defendants will in no way be prejudiced if the changes are allowed at this point in the 

proceedings. Furthermore, there is no apparent reason for denying the motion to amend, 

as none of the factors that may militate against it is present in this case. Consistent with 

the liberal standard that applies to motions to amend under Rule 15(a)(2), the Court 

should therefore grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint.

None of the factors that may discourage granting a motion for leave to amend is 

present in this case. Plaintiff moved swiftly to file this amendment in order to comply 

with this Court’s deadline for amending the pleadings. Thus, there is no undue delay in 

Plaintiff’s request to amend. Plaintiff is not seeking the amendment in bad faith or with a 

dilatory motive. 

The interests of justice and judicial economy will undoubtedly be served by having 

Case 2:16-cv-00271-GMS Document 33 Filed 09/15/16 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

27

28

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066 

Phoenix, AZ 85060

all allegations and parties properly before the Court as set forth in Plaintiff’s proposed 

First Amended Complaint. The amendments are narrowly tailored to reflect the present 

circumstances and Plaintiff’s present understanding of the case. In so doing, the action 

can more effectively proceed on the merits.

Defendants will not suffer any undue prejudice by virtue of the Court’s allowance 

of the proposed amendment. The determination of whether prejudice would occur often 

includes assessing whether allowing an amendment would result in additional discovery, 

cost, and preparation to defend against new facts or new theories. Defendants cannot be 

prejudiced, or caught off guard, by the new facts alleged by Plaintiff in the proposed 

amendment, since Defendants have first-hand knowledge of the roles that they played in 

the transactions and occurrences at issue, and discovery is currently in its infancy. No 

prejudice would result to Defendants in allowing the amendment under these 

circumstances.

Finally, Plaintiff’s request to file an amended complaint is not futile, as Plaintiff 

has alleged sufficient facts to state a claim for relief that is facially plausible. Where the 

proposed amendment is not clearly futile, denying leave to amend on this ground is 

highly improper.

Accordingly, in the interest of justice, this Court should grant Plaintiff’s Motion 

for Leave to File First Amended Complaint. The grant of this motion is particularly 

appropriate here, given the clear absence of any substantial reason to deny leave to 

amend.

II. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant him 

leave to file his proposed First Amended Complaint. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 15th day of September, 2016.

Case 2:16-cv-00271-GMS Document 33 Filed 09/15/16 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

27

28

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066 

Phoenix, AZ 85060

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

/s/ Clifford P. Bendau, II

Clifford P. Bendau, II

Attorney for Plaintiff

Certificate of Service

I certify that on this 15th Day of September, 2016, I electronically transmitted the 

attached document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF system for filing and 

transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants:

Adam C. Anderson

ANDERSON BANTA CLARKSON PLLC

48 North Macdonald

Mesa, AZ 85201

/s/Clifford P. Bendau, II Clifford P. Bendau, II

Case 2:16-cv-00271-GMS Document 33 Filed 09/15/16 Page 4 of 4