Thornton v. FCA US LLC
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:21-cv-08807
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Thornton v. FCA US LLC, Judge Chesney denied striking the amended complaint, granted leave to amend and FCA leave to answer, subject to service conditions.
Patrick Thornton, FCA US LLC, and the proposed additional defendant Guy Strohmeier's Auto Group. Thornton was allowed to proceed with the first amended complaint subject to service conditions; FCA was allowed to file an answer or other response.
What happened
In Thornton v. FCA US LLC, Patrick Thornton alleged that a vehicle he purchased from Guy Strohmeier's Auto Group was defective. Thornton filed a first amended complaint without first obtaining a court order.
FCA US LLC asked the court to strike that complaint or, alternatively, to allow FCA to file an answer. The court treated Thornton's opposition as a request for permission to amend instead of requiring a separate motion.
Judge Maxine M. Chesney denied the request to strike, granted Thornton leave to file the amended complaint, and granted FCA leave to file an answer. Adding Guy Strohmeier's Auto Group was conditioned on timely service and filing proof of service.
The detailed version
- Thornton v. FCA US LLC · No. 3:21-cv-08807
- Maxine Chesney
- June 24, 2022
Background
FCA US LLC moved to strike Patrick Thornton's first amended complaint or, alternatively, to obtain permission to file an answer. Thornton had filed the amended complaint on April 30, 2022, without first obtaining a court order or filing a stipulation agreeing to the amendment. Thornton had relied on a court-set April 30 deadline, but the court explained that the deadline was for moving to amend or filing a stipulation, not for filing an amended complaint without either of those steps.
The amended complaint added Guy Strohmeier's Auto Group, identified as the entity from which Thornton purchased the vehicle. FCA argued that Thornton's delay in alleging that the used vehicle was purchased from an FCA-authorized repair facility caused prejudice. The court found that FCA had not identified the nature of any prejudice and that none was apparent on the record. The court also found the failure to seek permission was an excusable mistake, the proposed amendments were not futile, the amendment was not sought in bad faith, and the delay was not undue.
Rulings
Rather than strike the first amended complaint and require Thornton to file a separate motion, the court treated his opposition as a request for leave to amend and granted that request. The court denied FCA's request to strike the first amended complaint.
The court imposed a condition on adding Guy Strohmeier's Auto Group as a defendant: Thornton had to serve that entity no later than July 15, 2022, and file proof of service no later than July 22, 2022. The court stated that failure to file proof of service would result in dismissal of that defendant without prejudice.
The court also granted FCA's alternative request for permission to file its proposed answer, or another response to the first amended complaint, by July 8, 2022. The court vacated the scheduled hearing and resolved the motion based on the written submissions. Judge Maxine M. Chesney did not decide whether Thornton's underlying allegations about the vehicle were legally or factually correct.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.