Cook Inlet Energy, LLC v. Cudd Pressure Control, Inc. et al

Filing 96

ORDER and OPINION denying 69 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Judge John W. Sedwick on 6/4/15. (NKD, COURT STAFF) .

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF ALASKA

8
9

Cook Inlet Energy, LLC,

10
11

Plaintiff,

12

vs.

13

Cudd Pressure Control, Inc.
and RPC, Inc.

14
15

Defendants.

16
17

Cudd Pressure Control, Inc.

18

Counter-Claimant,

19

vs.

20
21
22
23
24

Cook Inlet Energy, LLC
Counter-Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

3:13-cv-062 JWS

ORDER AND OPINION

[Re: Motion at docket 69]

I. MOTION PRESENTED
At docket 69, plaintiff Cook Inlet Energy, LLC (“CIE”) moves pursuant to Fed. R.

25
26
27
28

Civ. P. Rule 15(a)(2) for leave to file its proposed Third Amended Complaint. A copy of
the proposed Third Amended Complaint is at docket 69-1. A memorandum of law

1
2

supporting the motion is at docket 71. Defendant Cudd Pressure Control, Inc. (“Cudd”)
opposes the motion at docket 74. CIE replies at docket 85.

3

II. BACKGROUND

4
5

CIE operates an offshore oil platform called the Osprey. In 2011, CIE contracted

6

with Cudd to provide equipment and services for work-overs on three wells drilled from

7

the Osprey. Cudd did so. CIE alleges that the equipment Cudd brought to the Osprey

8

was inadequate and that the personnel Cudd employed lacked the ability to

9

satisfactorily perform the work-overs. CIE alleges that these deficiencies caused CIE to

10
incur extra costs and suffer delay.
11
12

In its First Amended Complaint,1 CIE sought a declaration that CIE owes nothing

13

more to Cudd. It also pled claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant

14

of good faith and fair dealing, and negligent misrepresentation. The First Amended

15

Complaint sought damages in excess of $75,000. Cudd’s counterclaims set out claims

16

for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and

17
18
19

unjust enrichment and sought damages in excess of $1,800,000.
CIE timely moved to file a Second Amended Complaint adding a claim that Cudd

20

breached express and implied warranties. Cudd did not oppose the motion, and it was

21

granted.2 Now before the court is CIE’s motion seeking leave to file a Third Amended

22

Complaint.

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The First Amended Complaint was filed within the time established by Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a)(1) for amendment as a matter of course without court approval.
2

Order at doc. 54.

2

1
2
3

III. DISCUSSION
The Rule 16 scheduling order in this case set February 14, 2014, as the deadline
for filing motions to amend.3 That deadline was later extended to May 14, 2014.4 While

4
5
6
7
8
9

some other deadlines in the scheduling order have been extended, there has been no
motion fo extend the deadline for motions to amend beyond May 14, 2014.
CIE relies on Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(12) which provides that the district court
“should freely give leave when justice so requires.” However, it is not Rule 15 which
applies here, because the motion to amend is not timely under the Rule 16 scheduling

10
order. After a district court has filed a scheduling order setting a deadline for amending
11
12

pleadings, the standards of Rule16(b) control.5 Rule 16(b)(4) provides that a

13

scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.”

14

“Unlike Rule 15(a)’s liberal amendment policy which focuses on the bad faith of the

15

party seeking to interpose an amendment and the prejudice to the opposing party, Rule

16

16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the

17
18

amendment.”6 When a party seeking to modify a scheduling order is not diligent, the

19

inquiry ends and the motion should not be granted.7 CIE did not move to amend the

20

scheduling order, nor even include a discussion of the issue in the motion it did file. As

21
22

3

23

4

24
25

Order at doc. 20.

Order at doc. 28. It may be added that CIE filed its motion for leave to file the Second
Amended Complaint on that very date.
5

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992).

26

6

27

7

28

Id. at 609.
Zikovic v. Southern Calif. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002).

3

1
2
3

a result, the court can find no basis for concluding CIE was sufficiently diligent to permit
amending the scheduling order. The motion at docket 69 is therefore DENIED.
DATED this 4th day of June 2015.

4
5
6
7
8

/S/
JOHN W. SEDWICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4