Gerrits et al v. Pima, County of et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Shawn Gerrits, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
County of Pima, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-00454-TUC-RM
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to File Third Amended Complaint
(“TAC”). (Doc. 17.) Defendants filed a Response in opposition (Doc. 19), and Plaintiff
filed a Reply (Doc. 20).
I. Background
Plaintiff Shawn Gerrits initiated this action in the Pima County Superior Court and,
while the case was in state court, filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) that added the
Law Office of Shawn Gerrits, PLLC as an additional Plaintiff. (Doc. 1-1 at 4-86, 90-170.)
Defendants removed the action to federal court (Doc. 1), and Plaintiff thereafter filed a
Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) (Doc. 9). The Court struck the SAC from the docket
because it was filed without the opposing parties’ written consent or the Court’s leave.
(Doc. 14.) Plaintiff thereafter filed the pending Motion for Leave to File TAC. (Doc. 17.)
The Court has extended Defendants’ deadline for answering or otherwise responding to
Plaintiff’s operative pleading pending the resolution of Plaintiff’s Motion. (Doc. 16.)
. . . .
Case 4:25-cv-00454-RM Document 24 Filed 01/28/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
II. Legal Standard
With the exception of amendments made as a matter of course, 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). Leave should freely be given “when justice so requires.” Id. In
determining whether to grant leave to amend, courts consider the following factors: “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, [and] futility of amendment.” Eminence Capital,
LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003).
III. Discussion
Plaintiff argues in his Motion that good cause exists to allow him to file his proposed
TAC because the amendments arise from recently obtained additional relevant evidence
that was not available at the time of the prior pleading. (Doc. 17.) Defendants argue that
Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied because the proposed TAC is overly verbose, includes
duplicative claims and improper commentary, fails to identify each party on each claim,
and includes claims that are facially defective. (Doc. 19.) Defendants ask the Court to
deny Plaintif’s Motion and direct Plaintiff to file a newly proposed amended complaint that
complies with the pleading standards of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 11, and
does not exceed 40 pages in length. (Id. at 8-9.) In reply, Plaintiff argues that Defendants
fail to meaningfully address the liberal standards governing amendments under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 15, and that Defendants’ procedural objections and factual
assertions do not justify denying amendment. (Doc. 20.)
The Court finds that Defendants’ arguments are more appropriate for a motion to
dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a motion to strike under Rule 12(f),
or a motion to dismiss under Rule 41(b) for failure to comply with Rule 8. Defendants
argue that some of Plaintiff’s claims are defective, but they do not contend that all the
amendments in the proposed TAC are futile. Defendants note that Plaintiff has made prior
amendments, but the Court struck Plaintiff’s SAC, and the FAC was filed as a matter of
Case 4:25-cv-00454-RM Document 24 Filed 01/28/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
course under Rule 15(a)(1). None of the prior amendments were made after notice from
the Court of deficiencies in the complaint. Defendants do not specifically argue that they
would be prejudiced by Plaintiff’s proposed amendment, that the proposed amendment
would cause undue delay, or that Plaintiff has acted with bad faith or dilatory motive.
Given the liberal standards of Rule 15(a)(2), the Court will grant Plaintiff’s Motion.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Third Amended
Complaint (Doc. 17) is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to file Plaintiff’s proposed
Third Amended Complaint (lodged at Doc. 18). Defendants shall answer or otherwise
respond to the Third Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days of the date this Order
is filed.
Dated this 28th day of January, 2026.
Case 4:25-cv-00454-RM Document 24 Filed 01/28/26 Page 3 of 3