United States District Court, D. Nevada
M. Navarro, Chief Judge United States District Court
before the Court is the Motion to Amend the Complaint, (ECF
No. 18), filed by Plaintiff Deyssi Janneth Prado-Guajardo
(“Plaintiff). Defendant Martin Guzman Perez
(“Defendant”) filed a Response, (ECF No. 20), and
Plaintiff filed a Reply, (ECF No. 22). For the reasons
discussed below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to
filed the instant action in state court, seeking damages for
an alleged non-collision accident. (See Ex. A to
Pet. in Removal (“Compl”), ECF No. 1-1).
Plaintiff claims that “Defendant failed to yield to
right of way to Plaintiff Motorcycle, ” and “[t]o
avoid collision with Defendant's Truck, Plaintiff veered
her Motorcycle to the left. Plaintiff was ejected from her
Motorcycle, slid on the roadway and sustained
injuries.” (Id. ¶¶ 8-9). Based on
these allegations, Plaintiff filed her Complaint in state
court asserting claims for negligence and negligence per se.
(Id.). Defendant removed the case to this Court,
citing federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331. (See Pet. in Removal, ECF No. 1).
Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(A) allows a party to amend
its pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days after
serving it. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1)(A). If the pleading is one
to which a responsive pleading is required, the party may
also amend within “21 days after service of a
responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion
under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.”
the time period to amend as a matter of course in Rule
15(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has passed,
“a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing
party's written consent or the court's leave.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). However, Rule 15(a)(2) further
instructs that courts “should freely give leave [to
amend] when justice so requires.” Id.
“In the absence of any apparent or declared reason-such
as 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,
futility of amendment, etc.-the leave sought should, as the
rules require, be ‘freely given.'” Foman
v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
seeks leave to add Defendant's employer, El Rayo
Transportation (“El Rayo”), as a defendant. (Mot.
to Amend 3:19-25, ECF No. 18). According to Plaintiff,
“El Rayo is believed to be the name of the company that
owned the tractor truck, which defendant . . . was driving at
the time of the subject incident, and likely was
Defendant's employer at the time.” (Id.).
Defendant argues that “Plaintiff's proposed
amendment to add El Rayo Transportation as a separate
defendant is futile” because El Rayo is “not a
separate and distinct entity” but “simply the
name [Defendant] uses in operating his business.”
(Resp. 3:18-21, 5:6-7, ECF No. 20). Further, Defendant
asserts that amendment would cause undue prejudice to
Defendant because “the trier of fact will think that
there is a separate corporate entity for which [Defendant]
was working at the time of this no-contact accident.”
Court finds that there is more than an adequate basis to
grant Plaintiff's Motion to Amend pursuant to Rule 15.
First, Plaintiff timely filed her Motion to Amend within the
deadline set by the Court's Scheduling Order. (Order
2:12-14, ECF No. 16). In addition, amendment would not be
futile because it brings parties into the suit against whom
Plaintiff has colorable claims. Discovery will clarify the
relationship between Defendant and El Rayo. Further,
Defendant fails to explain why a potential misunderstanding
by the trier of fact amounts to undue prejudice.
Defendant does not claim any other grounds for prejudice
exist, and the Court can see none. The Court therefore GRANTS
Plaintiffs Motion to Amend.
HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File
a First Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 18), is GRANTED.
Plaintiff shall have fourteen days from the filing date of
this Order to file her First Amended Complaint.
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Strike, ...