1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Case No.: 3:25-cv-00161-ART-CSD THE ESTATE OF KORINA ADAMS, by 4 Michele Darling, Personal Representative, et Order al., 5 Re: ECF Nos. 32, 35 Plaintiffs 6 v. 7 CARSON CITY, et al., 8 Defendants 9

10 Before the court is Plaintiffs’ motion to add Doe Brian Mays. (ECF Nos. 32, 32-1, 32-2, 11 32-3.) Defendants Carson City, Carson City Sheriff’s Office, Rocky Goetz, and Anthony 12 Viglietta filed a response. (ECF No. 33.) Plaintiffs filed a reply. (ECF Nos. 34, 34-1.) 13 Plaintiffs also filed a request for submission. (ECF No. 35.) 14 For the reasons set forth below, the motion to add Brian Mays as a defendant is granted, 15 but the request for submission is denied. 16 I. BACKGROUND 17 Plaintiffs originally filed this action in state court against defendants Carson City, Carson 18 City County, Carson City Sheriff’s Office, and Deputies Rocky Goetz, and Anthony Viglietta 19 related to the deaths of Korina Adams and Destiny Darling following a high-speed chase. The 20 action was removed to federal court. (ECF Nos. 1, 1-1.) 21 On July 1, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion to add Carson City Sheriff’s Office Shift 22 Supervisor Brian Mays as a necessary defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 19(1). (ECF No. 18.) Defendants opposed the motion, arguing that Mays is not a necessary party 1 under Rule 19. (ECF No. 21.) Plaintiffs filed a reply brief. (ECF No. 24.) Plaintiffs then filed a 2 request for submission of the motion to add Mays as a party. (ECF No. 27.) 3 The court issued an order denying the request for submission, noting that is a practice 4 utilized in state court, but is not authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Local

5 Rules in this District. Instead, the court pointed out that the federal rules permit the filing of a 6 motion, response and reply, and after briefing is complete, and then the motion will be addressed 7 in due course. (ECF. 28.) 8 The court set a hearing on the motion to add Mays as a party, but directed the parties to 9 meet and confer to attempt to resolve this issue in advance of the hearing, and to file a status 10 report regarding the meet and confer efforts. (ECF. 29.) 11 On September 15, 2025, the parties filed a joint status report. According to the report, 12 Plaintiffs agreed to withdraw the motion pursuant to Rule 19 and to file a motion for leave to 13 amend the complaint to substitute Mays in place of a Doe defendant in accordance with Federal 14 Rule of Civil Procedure 15. (ECF No. 30.)

15 As a result, the court vacated the hearing. (ECF No. 31.) 16 On September 16, 2025, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to add Brian Mays as a doe 17 defendant along with a proposed First Amended Complaint (FAC). (ECF Nos. 32, 32-2.) Instead 18 of bringing the motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, as was represented in the 19 joint status report, the motion was brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20. 20 Defendants filed a response, arguing that the request to add a party pursuant to Rule 20 is 21 procedurally deficient, as Plaintiffs were required to seek leave to amend under Rule 15. 22 Defendants acknowledge that if Plaintiffs motion was procedurally proper, the court would likely 23 grant leave to amend. (ECF No. 33.) 1 Plaintiffs filed a reply brief, arguing that both Rules 15 and 20 provide a basis to add 2 Mays as a defendant. (ECF No. 34.) 3 Undeterred by the court’s prior order, Plaintiffs filed another request for submission. 4 (ECF No. 35.)

5 II. MOTION TO ADD DOE BRIAN MAYS 6 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 is the procedural vehicle to correct or expand a 7 pleading in federal court. 8 “A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within: (A) 21 days after 9 serving it, or (B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after 10 service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), 11 whichever is earlier.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A), (B). Otherwise, a party must seek the opposing 12 party’s written consent or leave of court to amend a pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 13 “The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 14 Leave to amend need not be given where amendment: “(1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is

15 sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue delay in litigation; or (4) is futile.” Amerisource 16 Bergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). 17 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 governs permissive joinder. It provides the 18 framework for joining multiple defendants in one action; however, if a party properly joined 19 under Rule 20 was not named in the original complaint, the party must amend the complaint in 20 accordance with Rule 15. Under the circumstances presented here, Plaintiffs were required to 21 seek leave of court to amend their complaint. 22 In other words, while May might be a proper party under Rule 20, Plaintiffs were still 23 required to seek leave to amend to add him as a party. 1 Despite representing in the joint status report that Plaintiffs would file a motion to amend 2 under Rule 15, Plaintiffs did not do so, and instead brought their motion pursuant to Rule 20. 3 Plaintiffs do invoke Rule 15 in their reply, and Defendants appear to acknowledge amendment is 4 proper under Rule 15. Under these circumstances, rather than have Plaintiffs file yet another

5 motion to add Mays as a party, on this occasion only, the court will construe Plaintiffs’ request 6 as being made under Rule 15. 7 There is no prejudice to Defendants in allowing Plaintiffs to amend to add Mays as a 8 defendant. Nor will amendment unduly delay this litigation, and the court does not find that 9 amendment is sought in bad faith. 10 Therefore, Plaintiffs’ request to amend to add Mays as a party (ECF No. 32) is granted. 11 III. REQUEST FOR SUBMISSION 12 Plaintiffs’ counsel is either not reading the court’s orders or blatantly ignoring them, 13 resulting in a waste of the court’s time and resources. Plaintiffs’ request for submission (ECF 14 No. 35) is denied for the same reasons the prior request was denied in the court’s order at ECF

15 No. 28. 16 If Plaintiffs’ counsel continues to flout the court’s orders, the court will issue an order to 17 show cause why counsel should not be sanctioned. To that end, the court directs Plaintiffs’ 18 counsel to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules 19 for this District. 20 IV. CONCLUSION 21 (1) Plaintiffs’ motion to add Mays as a defendant (ECF No. 32) is GRANTED. 22 (2) The Clerk shall FILE the First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 32-2). 23 1 (3) Defendants have up to and including October 30, 2025, to file an answer or other 2 responsive pleading. 3 (4) Plaintiffs’ request for submission (ECF No. 35) is DENIED. 4) 1T IS SO ORDERED. 5|| Dated: October 9, 2025 CS On Craig S. Denney 7 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23