United States District Court, D. Nevada
before the court is a second motion to amend/correct
complaint filed by plaintiff Robert Winland, special
administrator for the Estate of Joyce Winland
(“plaintiff”). (ECF No. 33). No responses have
been filed, and the period to do so has since passed.
before the court is defendant Harbor Freight Tools USA,
Inc.'s (“defendant”) motion for leave to file
a third-party complaint. (ECF No. 34). Plaintiff filed a
non-opposition response. (ECF No. 35).
a premises liability action involving a slip and fall that
took place at defendant's retail store on December 9,
2015, which resulted in a fractured hip. Joyce Winland
tripped and fell while exiting the Harbor Freight retail
store in Henderson, Nevada, fracturing her hip in the fall.
(ECF No. 1-1).
April 7, 2016, Joyce Winland filed a complaint in state court
alleging two causes of action: (1) negligence based on
premises liability; and (2) negligent hiring, supervision,
and failure to warn. (ECF No. 1-1). On May 2, 2016, defendant
removed the action to federal court. (ECF No. 1).
November 3, 2016, counsel filed a notice of suggestion of
death, stating that Joyce Winland (“decedent”)
passed away unexpectedly during the pendency of the instant
action on May 31, 2016. (ECF No. 18). The next day, on
November 4, 2016, counsel filed a motion for substitution of
parties, requesting the substitution of Robert Winland in
place of Joyce Winland as plaintiff (ECF No. 19), which the
court granted (ECF No. 20).
January 16, 2017, with leave of the court (ECF No. 27),
plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding a claim for
wrongful death. (ECF No. 28).
instant motions, plaintiff requests leave to file a second
amended complaint to add decedent's daughter and heir
Christine Lada as a plaintiff (ECF No. 33), and defendant
requests leave to file a third-party complaint against
UniFirst Corporation (ECF No. 34). The court will address
each as it sees fit.
Legal Standards & Discussion
initial matter, the parties' motions (ECF Nos. 33, 34) do
not comply with Local Rule IC 2-2(a)(3)(A), which provides
that “[e]xhibits and attachments must not be filed as
part of the base document in the electronic filing
system.” LR IC 2-2(a)(3)(A). Rather, “[t]hey must
be attached as separate files[.]” LR IC 2-2(a)(3)(A).
the parties shall ensure that future filings comply with the
local and federal rules as future filings that fail to do so
will be stricken. See, e.g., Ready Transp., Inc.
v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010)
(holding that district courts have inherent power to control
their own dockets); see also LR IC 7-1 (“The
court may strike documents that do not comply with these
Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint
Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that “[t]he
court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so
requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). The United States
Supreme Court has interpreted Rule 15(a) and confirmed the
liberal standard district courts must apply when granting
such leave. In Foman v. Davis, the Supreme Court
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 the