Cartwright et al v. Hoodoo Land Holdings et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
JENNIFER CARTWRIGHT, individually
and as the personal representative of the
heirs and Estate of Cameron Rutherford;
and SCOTT RUTHERFORD, individually,
Plaintiffs,
v.
HOODOO LAND HOLDINGS, LLC, dba
PRESTON NUTTER RANCH; PRESTON
NUTTER RANGE CREEK HOLDINGS,
LLC; HUNT CONSOLIDATED, INC.;
HUNT HOODOO LAND HOLDINGS;
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO AMEND THE AMENDED
COMPLAINT
Case No. 2:24-cv-00376-TS-JCB
District Judge Ted Stewart
Magistrate Judge Jared C. Bennett
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend the Amended
Complaint.1 For the reasons discussed below, the Court will grant the Motion and allow
Plaintiffs to file a Second Amended Complaint within seven days of this Order.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs sue Defendants for claims related to the death of Cameron Rutherford (“Mr.
Rutherford”), which occurred on June 25, 2023, at a cabin located in Carbon County, Utah.
Plaintiff Jennifer Cartwright is Mr. Rutherford’s mother and Plaintiff Scott Rutherford is Mr.
Rutherford’s father.2 Plaintiffs allege that Defendants HooDoo Land Holdings, LLC dba Preston
Nutter Ranch, Preston Nutter Range Creek Holdings, LLC, and Hunt Consolidated, Inc.
1 Docket No. 46.
2 Docket No. 45 ¶¶ 1–2.
Case 2:24-cv-00376-TS-JCB Document 108 Filed 02/02/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 4

2
(collectively “Hunt”) owned, managed, operated and/or maintained Preston Nutter Ranch (the
“Ranch”), including the cabin where Mr. Rutherford resided and where he ultimately passed
away.3 Plaintiffs seek to add Hunt Oil Company as a defendant in this matter. Plaintiffs assert
that discovery in this matter implicates Hunt Oil and it should be added as a party to the case via
a Second Amended Complaint.4
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that, after a responsive pleading
has been served, “a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent
or the court’s leave.”5 “[T]he court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so
requires,”6 because “[t]he purpose of the Rule is to provide litigants ‘the maximum opportunity
for each claim to be decided on its merits rather than on procedural niceties.’”7
“Refusing leave to amend is generally only justified upon a showing of undue delay,
undue prejudice to the opposing party, bad faith or dilatory motive, failure to cure deficiencies
by amendments previously allowed, or futility of amendment.”8 “A general presumption exists in
3 Id. ¶¶ 3, 8, 11.
4 Docket No. 46, at 5.
5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
6 Id.
7 Minter v. Prime Equip. Co., 451 F.3d 1196, 1204 (10th Cir. 2006) (quoting Hardin v.
Manitowoc-Forsythe Corp., 691 F.2d 449, 456 (10th Cir. 1982)).
8 Frank v. U.S. West, Inc., 3 F.3d 1357, 1365 (10th Cir. 1993); see also Foman v. Davis,
371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (“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 amendment, etc.—the leave sought should, as the rules
require, be ‘freely given.’”).
Case 2:24-cv-00376-TS-JCB Document 108 Filed 02/02/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 4

3
favor of allowing a party to amend its pleadings, and the non-moving party bears the burden of
showing that the proposed amendment is improper.”9
III. ANALYSIS
Defendants object to the amendment on the basis that it is futile because the Court lacks
personal jurisdiction over the proposed new defendant, Hunt Oil. However, there is no
requirement that “a court . . . determine whether personal jurisdiction exists before allowing
amendment to add a new party, particularly where the new party has not appeared or asserted
lack of personal jurisdiction.”10
Next, Defendants argue that the Motion should be denied because it fails to state a claim
for negligence against Hunt Oil because it was not an owner or possessor of the Ranch at the
time of the incident and did not owe Mr. Rutherford a duty of care.11
“[I]t is within the court’s discretion to decline to engage in a futility analysis in the
context of a motion to amend if the court determines the futility arguments would be more
properly addressed in dispositive motions.”12 Here, the Court does not believe that the instant
9 Carrazco v. Morrison, No. 21-cv-01277-NYW, 2022 WL 2666031, at *2 (D. Colo. July
11, 2022) (citing Foman, 371 U.S. at 182; Jefferson Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. R-1 v. Moody’s Inv.
Servs., Inc., 175 F.3d 848, 859 (10th Cir. 1999)).
10 Simple Prods. Corp. v. Chia-Ling Huang, No. 2:19-cv-00317-DBB-DAO, 2021 WL
2210308, at *4 (D. Utah June 1, 2021).
11 Docket No. 69, at 10.
12 Simple Prods. Corp, 2021 WL 2210308, at *4. See Lambe v. Sundance Mountain
Resort, No. 2:17-cv-00011-JNP, 2018 WL 4558413, at *3 (D. Utah Sept. 21, 2018) (declining to
engage in a futility analysis when “the viability of [the] claim is more appropriately addressed in
the context of a dispositive motion as opposed to a motion for amendment”); JDK, LLC v.
Hodge, No. 15-cv-00494-NYW, 2015 WL 5766466, at *2 (D. Colo. Oct. 2, 2015) (“With a mind
to the interests of judicial economy, this court exercises its discretion in declining to engage in a
detailed futility analysis where [the d]efendants’ arguments are better suited for consideration in
the context of their [m]otions to [d]ismiss.”); Gen. Steel Domestic Sales, LLC v. Steelwise, No.
07-cv-01145-DME-KMT, 2008 WL 2520423, at *4 (D. Colo. June 20, 2008) (concluding that
the futility argument “seems to place the cart before the horse[;] [r]ather than force a Rule
Case 2:24-cv-00376-TS-JCB Document 108 Filed 02/02/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 4

4
Motion is the appropriate avenue for the parties and the Court to properly analyze these
arguments, particularly because Hunt Oil is not raising these arguments itself. The Court will
therefore exercise its discretion to decline to analyze futility regarding these issues as they are
more appropriately suited for dispositive motions.
Defendants do not otherwise challenge the Motion under Rule 15. Accordingly, the Court
does not find undue delay, undue prejudice, bad faith or dilatory motive, or failure to cure
deficiencies by amendments previously allowed. Therefore, the Court will grant the Motion and
directs Plaintiffs to file their Second Amended Complaint within seven (7) days of this Order.
IV. CONCLUSION
It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend the Amended Complaint (Docket No. 46) is
GRANTED; it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiffs file their Second Amended Complaint within seven (7) days of
this Order.
DATED February 2, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
______________________________________
TED STEWART
United States District Judge
12(b)(6) motion into a Rule 15(a) opposition brief, the defendants may be better served by
waiting to assert Rule 12 motions until the operative complaint is in place”).
Case 2:24-cv-00376-TS-JCB Document 108 Filed 02/02/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 4