Thornton v. FCA US LLC

Opinion

1 2 5 6 PATRICK THORNTON, Case No. 21-cv-08807-MMC

7 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST AMENDED 8 v. COMPLAINT OR, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR LEAVE TO FILE ANSWER; 9 FCA US LLC, et al., VACATING HEARING; AFFORDING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO AMEND; 10 Defendants. DIRECTIONS TO PARTIES

11 12 Before the Court is defendant FCA US LLC's ("FCA") Motion, filed May 27, 2022, 13 "to Strike the First Amended Complaint, or in the Alternative [for] Leave to File an Answer 14 to the First Amended Complaint." Plaintiff Patrick Thornton ("Thornton") has filed 15 opposition, to which FCA has replied. Having read and considered the papers filed in 16 support of and in opposition to the motion,1 the Court deems the matter appropriate for 17 determination on the parties' respective written submissions, VACATES the hearing 18 scheduled for July 8, 2022, and rules as follows. 19 In the above-titled action, Gomez raises claims arising from his purchase of an 20 FCA vehicle he alleges is defective. By the instant motion, FCA challenges the propriety 21 of Thornton's filing, on April 30, 2022, a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), without first 22 having obtained a court order. Although Thornton relies on the Court's having set, in its 23 Pretrial Preparation Order, a deadline of April 30, 2022, to amend pleadings (see Doc. 24 No. 32), the deadline set by the Court was the deadline for a party to either move to 25 1 Thornton failed to provide the Court with a courtesy copy of his opposition and 26 FCA failed to provide a courtesy copy of its reply. Nonetheless, the Court has considered those filings. For future reference, the parties are reminded that, pursuant to the Court's 27 Standing Orders, parties are required to provide for use in chambers one paper copy of 1 amend or to file a stipulation agreeing to such amendment, neither of which Thornton 2 did.2 3 In his opposition, Thornton states that if he misunderstood the deadline set by the 4 Court, he will seek leave to file the FAC. Rather than striking the FAC and requiring 5 Thornton to file a motion, however, the Court, in the interests of judicial economy, finds it 6 preferable to treat Thornton's opposition as a request to file the FAC. See, e.g., Edwards 7 v. Occidental Chemical Corp., 892 F.2d 1442, 1445-46 and n.2 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding 8 district court may grant request to amend, made in opposition to motion for summary 9 judgment, without requiring requesting party to file motion to amend). Further, as it 10 appears that the failure to file a motion to amend by April 30 was the result of an 11 excusable mistake, that the proposed amendments are not futile, that the amendment is 12 not sought in bad faith, that any period of delay was not undue, and that no cognizable 13 prejudice has been shown,3 the request to amend will be granted. See Johnson, 975 14 F.2d at 607-08 (setting forth factors to be considered when party seeks leave to amend). 15 A court may, however, impose "reasonable conditions on a grant of leave to 16 amend." See International Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 761 F.2d 1386, 17 1391 (9th Cir. 1985) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Here, the FAC adds as a 18 new defendant Guy Strohmeier's Auto Group ("Guy Strohmeier's"), the entity from whom 19 Thornton purchased the subject vehicle. As the deadline to complete fact discovery is 20 September 26, 2022, and the docket reflects the Clerk of Court has already issued a 21 2 Although a party seeking to amend on or before such deadline need only 22 establish the proposed amendment is proper under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, see Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 23 1992), whereas a party seeking to amend after the expiration of such deadline must additionally establish "diligence" prior to expiration, see id. at 608-09, in either instance, 24 the requisite showing must be made. 25 3 Although FCA argues it will be prejudiced in light of Thornton's having delayed alleging "the used vehicle was purchased at an FCA US LLC authorized repair facility" 26 (see Def.'s Reply at 2:15-16, 25-27), FCA fails to identify the nature of any prejudice, nor is any apparent, particularly in light of FCA's having been aware, no later than May 28, 27 2021, Thornton purchased his vehicle from Guy Strohmeier's Auto Group (see Skanes 1 summons as to Guy Strohmeier's (see Doc. No. 40), leave to add Guy Strohmeier's as a 2 || party will be conditioned on Thornton's serving said entity no later than July 15, 2022. 3 Failure to file proof of such service will result in dismissal of said defendant without 4 || prejudice. 5 Lastly, the Court will grant FCA's alternative request that it be afforded leave to file 6 || the proposed answer it submitted in connection with the instant motion. 8 For the reasons stated above: 9 1. To the extent FCA seeks an order striking the FAC, the motion is hereby 10 DENIED, and Thornton's request for leave to file the FAC is GRANTED, with the 11 limitation that the addition of Guy Strohmeier's as a defendant is conditioned on its being g 12 || served no later than July 15, 2022, and proof of such service being filed no later than July || 22, 2022. 14 2. To the extent FCA seeks leave to file an answer to the FAC, the motion is 2 15 hereby GRANTED, and FCA is DIRECTED to file its proposed answer, or any other a 16 || response to the FAC if it so chooses, no later than July 8, 2022.

19 |] Dated: June 24, 2022 lfaere □□□ MAXINE M. CHESNEY 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28