Armstrong v. General Motors LLC

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John Armstrong, No. CV-20-00284-PHX-ROS

Plaintiff, ORDER v.

General Motors LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff requests leave to amend his complaint to add Isuzu Motors America, LLC, as a defendant. (Doc. 46). The current defendant, General Motors LLC, did not file an opposition. General Motors did, however, file a motion seeking to stay this case while Plaintiff appeals the dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction of another company, Isuzu Motors Limited. (Doc. 48). Based on the lack of opposition, the motion to amend will be granted. But under the applicable test, General Motors is not entitled to a stay.

As noted by the Ninth Circuit, “being required to defend a suit, without more, does not constitute” the requisite type of “of hardship or inequity” to support a stay of the type General Motors seeks. Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1112 (9th Cir. 2005). General Motors claims that, absent a stay, there is a risk of “duplicative discovery requests” and it “may be required to navigate international law in order to obtain discovery responses.” (Doc. 48 at 3) (emphasis added). But, at present, General Motor’s concerns appear speculative, especially considering the addition of Isuzu Motors America, LLC, as a defendant. Plaintiff has not identified significant prejudice he will suffer should the case be stayed and whether to grant a stay presents a closer question when, as here, the suit is seeking “damages for past harm,” not injunctive relief. Lockyer, 398 F.3d at 1112. But, in the present circumstances, Plaintiff’s entitlement to a speedy resolution outweighs General Motor’s speculative concerns regarding complicated or duplicative discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (requiring rules be employed “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination” of the matter).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Amend (Doc. 46) and Motion for Summary Disposition (Doc. 51) are GRANTED. No later than May 20, 2021, Plaintiff shall file his amended complaint.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Stay (Doc. 48) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Expedite (Doc. 53) is DENIED AS MOOT.

Dated this 17th day of May, 2021. fo . f —— i

Senior United States District Judge

_2-