Engstrom v. Wells

• Decision Date: 25 September 2018
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:18-cv-00031-EJL
• Parties: SHARI ENGSTROM and DAVE ENGSTROM, wife and husband and their marital community comprised thereof, Plaintiffs, v. JOHN WELLS, individually and as guardian of L.W., a minor, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Idaho

SHARI ENGSTROM and DAVE ENGSTROM,wife and husband and their marital community comprised thereof, Plaintiffs, v. JOHN WELLS, individually and as guardian of L.W., a minor, Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cv-00031-EJL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

September 25, 2018

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

INTRODUCTION

Before the Court in the above entitled matter are the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint. (Dkt. 18, 19.) The Motions are ripe for the Court's consideration. The facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and record. Accordingly, in the interest of avoiding further delay, and because the Court conclusively finds that the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument, the Motions are decided based on the record.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This case arises out of events occurring on February 5, 2016 on the Lower College ski run at Baldy Mountain in the Sun Valley Ski Resort in Idaho. The ski run is designated as a "slow skiing" area and is posted as a "Family Zone." On that day, Plaintiff Shari Engstrom alleges she was injured when she was struck by L.W., a minor, who was traveling at a "high rate of speed." (Dkt. 1.) The Complaint further alleges that L.W.'s father, John Wells, also skied by Ms. Engstrom "moving at a high rate of speed." (Dkt. 1.) As a result, Ms. Engstrom and her husband, Plaintiff Dave Engstrom, filed the Complaint in this case raising a negligence claim purportedly against both L.W. and John Wells.

The parties have filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to File an Amended Complaint. (Dkt. 18, 19.) For the reasons stated below, the Court grants Plaintiffs leave to amend and denies Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.

STANDARDS OF LAW

1. Amendment of Pleadings

Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that leave to amend "shall be freely given when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Indeed, while the decision to grant leave to amend is within the Court's discretion, the Court "must be guided by the underlying purpose of Rule 15 to facilitate decision on the merits rather than on the pleadings or technicalities." United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981). This "policy of favoring amendments to pleadings should be applied with extreme liberality." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (Courts apply Rule 15 with "extreme liberality.").

In determining whether a motion to amend should be granted, the court generally considers five factors: (1) undue delay; (2) bad faith; (3) futility of amendment; (4) prejudice to the opposing party; and (5) whether the plaintiff has previously amended thecomplaint. United States v. Corinthian Colls., 655 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). These factors are not weighted equally: "futility of amendment alone can justify the denial of a motion" to amend. Ahlmeyer v. Nev. Sys. of Higher Educ., 555 F .3d 1051, 1055 (9th Cir. 2009). "Generally, this determination should be performed with all inferences in favor of granting the motion." Griggs v. Pace Am. Group, Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987)).

2. Relation Back

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)(1)(C) provides the federal standard for whether a pleading relates back to the date of the initial pleading. Butler v. Nat. Community Renaissance of Cal., 766 F.3d 1191, 1202-03 (9th Cir. 2014); (citing Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A., 560 U.S. 538, 541 (2010) ("Rule 15(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs when an amended pleading 'relates back' to the date of a timely filed original pleading and is thus itself timely even though it was filed outside an applicable statute of limitations."). Rule 15(c)(1) provides:

(1) When an Amendment Relates Back. An amendment to a pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading when:

(A) the law that provides the applicable statute of limitations allows relation back;

(B) the amendment asserts a claim or defense that arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out—or attempted to be set out—in the original pleading; or

(C) the amendment changes the party or the naming of the party against whom a claim is asserted, if Rule 15(c)(1)(B) is satisfied and if, within the period provided by Rule 4(m) for serving the summons and complaint, the party to be brought in by amendment:

(i) received such notice of the action that it will not be prejudiced in defending on the merits; and(ii) knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against it, but for a mistake concerning the proper party's identity.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1). Therefore, "[i]n order for an amended complaint to relate back under Rule 15(c)(1)(C), the following conditions must be met: '(1) the basic claim must have arisen out of the conduct set forth in the original pleading; (2) the party to be brought in must have received such notice that it will not be prejudiced in maintaining its defense; [and] (3) that party must or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning identity, the action would have been brought against it.'" Butler, 766 F.3d at 1202-03 (quoting Schiavone v. Fortune, 477 U.S. 21, 29 (1986)). "Additionally, the second and third requirements must have been fulfilled within 120 days after the original complaint is filed, as prescribed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m)." Id. (citations omitted).

Rule 15(c) "is the only vehicle through which a plaintiff may amend his complaint, after a statute of limitation period has run, to accurately name a defendant who was not correctly named in the pleading before the limitation period had run." G.F. Co. v. Pan Ocean Shipping Co., Ltd., 23 F.3d 1498, 1501 (9th Cir. 1994).

3. Summary Judgment

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides, in pertinent part, that judgment "shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Summary judgment is mandated if the non-moving party fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element which is essential to thenon-moving party's case and upon which the non-moving party will bear the burden of proof at trial. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). If the non-moving party fails to make such a showing, "there can be no 'genuine issue of material fact,' since a complete[] failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial." Id. at 323. When applying this standard, the court views all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986); Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d 531, 541 (9th Cir. 1992).

DISCUSSION

In his Motion for Summary Judgment, John Wells argues he is the only named Defendant in this action and that the Complaint should be dismissed as a matter of law because 1) it fails to present a valid negligence claim against him and 2) the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. (Dkt. 18.) Plaintiffs oppose the Motion arguing they properly named both John Wells and L.W. as Defendants and that issues of fact preclude summary judgment as to John Wells' own negligence. (Dkt. 20, 22.) Alternatively, Plaintiffs seek to file an Amended Complaint to clarify or correct any errors in the pleadings. (Dkt. 19.)

1. Properly Named Defendants

Plaintiffs maintain they have properly named both John Wells and L.W. as Defendants. The Court agrees.

Minor children cannot bring their own claims in court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b)(1), (c); Idaho Code § 5-306 (requiring that when an infant is a party, he or she must appear either by his or her general guardian or by a guardian ad litem.). However, a representative"may sue or defend on behalf of a minor" and "[a] minor ... who does not have a duly appointed representative may sue by a next friend or by a guardian ad litem." Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c).

The caption of the Complaint in this case names as "Defendants" "John Wells, individually and as guardian of L.W., a minor." (Dkt. 1.) More importantly, both John Wells and L.W. are referred to within the body of the Complaint as Defendants. As such, the Court finds Plaintiffs have named both L.W. and John Wells as Defendants in this action. However, the Court finds it appropriate for Plaintiffs to amend the Complaint to add L.W. to the caption of the Complaint as they have proposed in order to clarify the named Defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Such amendment shall relate back to the date of the original Complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c).

It is plainly evident from the body of the pleading that the Complaint in this action names both L.W. and John Wells as Defendants. (Dkt. 1.) The caption of the Complaint appears to have omitted L.W. as a Defendant. Such an error is easily and appropriately corrected by allowing Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. This case is in the early stages and allowing this simple correction will not cause any undue delay. There is no indication of any bad faith, dilatory motive, or undue delay on the part of the Plaintiffs.

The Court further finds it appropriate to grant Plaintiffs leave to amend the Complaint to correct the caption to add L.W. that relates back to the date of the original Complaint. The claim made against L.W. arises out of L.W.'s conduct set forth in the original pleading, L.W. received notice of that claim so as not to be prejudiced, and L.W. knew or should have known that the action was or would be brought against him. L.W. isclearly named and included as a...