Ramos v. Funding Rush, Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California grants Defendants Katherine Heftman and Richard Barnes’s motion to amend their pleadings. The court permits the proposed counterclaims and cross-claims, concluding that the motion was timely under the scheduling order, amendment was warranted under Rule 15, and the proposed claims were not shown to be futile or prejudicial. The court also denies as moot the parties’ requests for judicial notice and directs the movants to file the proposed pleadings within three days.

Holdings

1. Because Movants filed their motion before the scheduling-order deadline to amend pleadings, they were not required to show good cause under Rule 16(b) to modify the scheduling order.
2. Leave to amend to add the proposed Counterclaim was warranted because the motion was timely, the delay was adequately explained by the death of Movants' former counsel and the prompt appearance of new counsel, and Plaintiffs failed to establish prejudice, bad faith, undue delay, or futility.
3. Leave to file the proposed Cross Complaint was warranted because the motion was timely, Jones's opposition was untimely and was construed as a non-opposition, Movants did not act in bad faith or with undue delay, and Jones would not be prejudiced.
4. The request to amend the proposed Cross Complaint to assert negligent misrepresentation instead of negligence was not properly before the court because Movants did not file an amended motion.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Defendants Heftman and Barnes timely moved to amend their pleadings under the scheduling order.
2. Whether the proposed counterclaims should be allowed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 despite Plaintiffs' assertions of delay, prejudice, bad faith, and futility.
3. Whether the proposed Cross Complaint should be allowed despite Jones's arguments that the negligence claim was futile and improper.
4. Whether Movants could amend their proposed Cross Complaint through a request raised in briefing to substitute a negligent-misrepresentation claim for the proposed negligence claim.

Disposition

other