King v. Julia Owner LLC 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
Troy King,
Plaintiff,
v.
Julia Owner LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-03686-PHX-KML
ORDER
On October 20, 2025, the court dismissed plaintiff Troy King’s original complaint
because he had not made sufficient factual allegations to state a plausible claim for relief.
(Doc. 6.) The court granted King leave to amend and provided detailed instructions on the
additional allegations King needed to include if he chose to file an amended complaint.
(Doc. 6.) King filed an amended complaint that did not include the necessary additions. On
November 5, 2025, the court dismissed that amended complaint. (Doc. 8.) The court
explained leave to amend was not appropriate because the amended complaint had “made
no headway in meeting [the] requirements” for stating a claim for relief. (Doc. 8.) The
Clerk of Court entered judgment the same day. (Doc. 9.)
On December 15, 2025, King filed a motion for leave to file a second amended
complaint. That motion argues Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 requires leave to amend
be granted with “extreme liberality” (Doc. 10 at 2) and does not acknowledge the judgment
entered in this case.
Because judgment has been entered, the only way for litigation to resume would be
Case 2:25-cv-03686-KML Document 12 Filed 12/17/25 Page 1 of 2

- 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
for King to have that judgment set aside under Rule 60(b). That rule “allows a party to seek
relief from final judgment and reopen a case based on mistake or excusable neglect, newly
discovered evidence, fraud, or the void or prospectively inequitable status of a judgment.”
BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman, 605 U.S. 204, 210 (2025). King’s reliance on Rule 15 is
misplaced because “Rules 60(b) and 15(a) apply at different stages of litigation and demand
separate inquiries.” Id. at 213. Only if King had satisfied Rule 60(b) would Rule 15 be
relevant. Id. King does not make any argument under Rule 60 and the present record does
not support setting aside the judgment.
IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Amend (Doc. 10) is DENIED. This case shall
remain closed.
Dated this 17th day of December, 2025.
Case 2:25-cv-03686-KML Document 12 Filed 12/17/25 Page 2 of 2