Free Order on Motion to Amend/Correct - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

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 Court will not grant oral argument . The parties' memoranda thoroughly discuss the law and evidence and t he Court concludes that additional argument will not aid its decisional process. See Mahon v. Credit Bur. of Placer County, Inc., 171 F.3d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 1999). Case 2:04-cv-00662-DGC Document 108 Filed 08/03/2005 Page 1 of 3
1

IN THE UNITED S TATES DIS TRICT COURT FOR THE DIS TRICT OF ARIZONA

) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) ) Lumbermens M utual Casualty Company,) ) Defendant. ) ) )

U-Haul International, Inc., et al,

No. CV 04-662-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Defendant/Counter-P laintiff has filed a M otion for Leave to Amend Answer and Counterclaim. Doc. #91. Defendant asks the Court for leave t o amend its pleadings to

reflect its payout in the "M artinez" claim, w hich potentially affects Defendant's obligation to P laintiff in the "Fernandez" claim at issue in this case. Id. Plaintiff opposes the

amendment on the grounds that it was sought after the Court's deadline for amendments, that Defendant was aware of the M artinez claim before P laint iff filed suit, and that the amendment would be prejudicial to Plaintiff, especially becaus e the deadline for discovery has passed. Doc. #98. Defendant responds by arguing that Plaintiff has not met it s burden of showing prejudice from the proposed amendment.1

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 Court's Case M anagement Order, dated M ay 18, 2004, contains the following paragraph: Deadline for Joining Parties and Amending Pleadings. The 2. deadline for joining parties and amending pleadings is 90 days from the date of this Order. M otions to join parties or for leave to amend pleadings s hall be filed within 30 days of this Order so they can be heard and decided prior to the deadline. (Doc. #17) (emphasis in original). The deadline for filing motions for leave to amend was therefore June 16, 2004. D efendant filed two motions to amend its answer and Defendant's latest

counterclaims before the deadline, each of which the Court granted. motion was filed on April 13, 2005, nearly ten months late.

A deadline established under Rule 16 "shall not be modified except upon a showing of good cause[.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b); see Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992) ("The scheduling order `controls the subsequent course of the action' unles s modified by the court.") (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(a)). "Good cause" exists when a deadline "cannot reasonably be met despite t he diligence of the parties seeking the extension." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 Advisory Comm.'s Notes (1983 Am.). The Court concludes t hat Defendant had ample opportunity to amend its answer and counterclaims prior to t he deadline of June 16, 2004. Defendant argues that it did not become aware of the facts underlying the M artinez claim until after the deadline had passed, but the evidence appears otherwise. P laint iff has submitted a letter from

Defendant, dated M ay 29, 2002 ­ nearly two years before the lawsuit was removed to this Court ­ showing that Defendant initially intended to deny coverage because the M artinez claim had exhausted Plaintiff's policy limits ­ the pos it ion Defendant now seeks to take in its amended answer and counterclaim. See Doc. 99, Ex. C. D efendant argues that Plaintiff has not met its burden of showing that it would be prejudiced by the amendment. Plaintiff disagrees, arguing that it conducted all of its

discovery in this case without any allegations regarding M artinez, and that the addition of t he M artinez allegations is not merely a matter of contract interpretation for t he Court -2Case 2:04-cv-00662-DGC Document 108 Filed 08/03/2005 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

requiring no additional fact discovery as Defendant asserts.

Whether or not this is true,

prejudice is not the relevant inquiry. "Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party's reasons for seeking modification [of t he Rule 16 schedule]. If t hat party was not diligent, the inquiry should end." Johnson, 975

F.2d at 609 (citation omitted). Given the evidence that Defendant knew of the M artinez claim payment long before the deadline for amendments in this case, Defendant has not shown that it was diligent. Because Defendant has not shown good caus e to modify the Court's Rule 16 schedule, the motion to amend will be denied. "In these days of heavy cas e loads, trial courts . . . set schedules and establish deadlines to foster the efficient treatment and resolution of cases." Wong v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 279 F .3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). "Parties must understand that they will pay a price for failure to comply s trictly with scheduling and other orders[.]" Id. "As the t orrent of civil and criminal cases unleashed in recent years has threatened to inundat e federal courts , deliverance has been sought in the use of calendar management techniques. Rule 16 is an important component of those techniques." Johnson, 975 F.2d at 611. IT IS ORDERED that Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff's M otion for Leave to Amend Answer and Counterclaim (Doc. #91) is denied. DATED this 3rd day of August, 2005.

-3Case 2:04-cv-00662-DGC Document 108 Filed 08/03/2005 Page 3 of 3