Rindlisbacher et al v. Steinway & Sons Incorporated

Filing 113

ORDER: IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 75 ). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 102 ). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot Defendant's Motion to Expedite Consideration of Motion for Leave to File Counterclaims (Doc. 94 ) [see attached Order for details]. Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 8/9/19. (MAW)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Kevin H. Rindlisbacher, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-18-01131-PHX-JJT

Steinway & Sons Incorporated,

13

Defendant.

14
15

At issue is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 75, Mot.), to which

16

Defendant filed a Response (Doc. 111). Also at issue is Defendant’s Motion for Leave to

17

File Counterclaims (Doc. 81), to which Plaintiffs filed a Response (Doc. 89) and Defendant

18

filed a Reply (Doc. 91, Reply). The Court will also address Defendant’s Motion to Expedite

19

Consideration (Doc. 94), to which Plaintiffs filed a Response (Doc. 95) and Defendant filed

20

a Reply (Doc. 98). The Court finds these matters appropriate for decision without oral

21

argument. See LRCiv 7.2(f).

22

I.

Motion for Reconsideration

23

The Court will grant Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (Mot.) as to their claim

24

for fraudulent omissions. While the Court initially granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

25

(Doc. 26) on this count, finding that a claim for fraudulent omissions—otherwise known

26

as nondisclosure—is duplicative of Plaintiffs’ claim for constructive fraud, the Court will

27

now allow both claims to proceed.

28

1

As the Court expressed in its Order on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 74,

2

Order), Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint did not present their claims in an easily

3

discernable manner. Plaintiffs presented their alleged facts quite clearly, but then largely

4

failed to articulate clear causes of action, instead leaving it to the Court to interpret which

5

torts Plaintiffs intended to allege. Upon reading the briefs related to Defendant’s Motion

6

to Dismiss, the Court concluded—and remains convinced now—that Plaintiffs failed to

7

articulate any actionable affirmative representations made by Defendant. Rather, the Court

8

recognized Plaintiffs’ claims premised on alleged omissions. Also finding that Plaintiffs

9

plausibly alleged the existence of a confidential or fiduciary relationship with Defendant,

10

the Court allowed Plaintiffs’ claim for constructive fraud to proceed. (Order at 9–10.)

11

However, the Court interpreted Plaintiffs’ Count II for “Fraudulent Representations and

12

Omissions” as a claim for nondisclosure, as articulated by § 551 of the Restatement

13

(Second) of Torts. (Order at 9–10.) Finding that such a claim would be duplicative of

14

constructive fraud, the Court dismissed Count II for nondisclosure.1 (Order at 10.)

15

In filing their Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiffs argue that the Court erred in

16

dismissing Count II because it may be used as an alternative theory of liability if a jury

17

finds that Plaintiffs and Defendant did not share a confidential relationship and thus

18

Plaintiffs may not seek relief under constructive fraud. (Mot. at 1.) The Court agrees that

19

§ 551 of the Restatement provides ways other than a confidential relationship to create the

20

duty to disclose which Plaintiffs allege Defendant violated in this case. Specifically,

21

Plaintiffs argue that their Count II should survive because Defendant had a duty to disclose

22

certain material facts under subsections (b) and (e) of § 551(2).

23

The Court does not find plausible Plaintiffs’ application of subsection (e), which

24

creates a duty for a “party to a business transaction” to “exercise reasonable care to disclose

25

. . . (e) facts basic to the transaction.” Restatement (Second of Torts) § 551(2)(e) (Am. Law

26

Inst. 1977). Upon a reading of the relevant subsection and comments to the Restatement,

27
1

28

Plaintiffs labeled their Count I as “Nondisclosure/Constructive Fraud.” This was
confusing. The label “nondisclosure” more appropriately describes the fraudulent
omissions outlined in Count II and reflected in § 551 of the Restatement.
-2-

1

the Court finds that this subsection does not apply to the alleged omissions at hand because

2

they do not plausibly give rise to a scenario where “the advantage taken of the plaintiff’s

3

ignorance is so shocking to the ethical sense of the community, and is so extreme and

4

unfair, as to amount to a form of swindling, in which the plaintiff is led by appearances

5

into a bargain that is a trap, of whose essence and substance he is unaware.” Id. Plaintiffs

6

allege no facts that plausibly paint Defendant’s alleged omissions as “facts basic to the

7

transaction.”2

8

Subsection (b) creates a duty for a “party to a business transaction” to disclose

9

“matters known to him that he knows to be necessary to prevent his partial or ambiguous

10

statement of the facts from being misleading.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 551(2)(b)

11

(Am. Law Inst. 1977). While Plaintiffs make their argument on this point clear in the

12

Motion for Reconsideration, the Court must squint to see this theory of fraud liability

13

anywhere in Plaintiffs’ Complaint or other filings. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant made

14

several omissions (SAC ¶ 95) but never articulate how those omissions rendered other

15

statements misleading. Even in Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, this

16

theory is reflected in only one sentence that states merely that “[o]ne who fails to disclose

17

material facts necessary to make his representations not misleading is guilty of fraud.”

18

(Doc. 34 at 9.) That sentence is within a section pertaining to Defendant’s affirmative

19

representations, which the Court already concluded do not constitute actionable

20

representations for the purposes of Count II. (Doc. 34 at 8–9.)

21

Even given an apparent lack of foresight by Plaintiffs, the Court concludes that their

22

argument is ultimately correct. Plaintiffs plausibly allege that Defendant’s omissions

23

rendered its other statements misleading or ambiguous.3 And this theory may be important

24

2

25
26
27
28

Further, the Court notes that a defendant is not liable for nondisclosure of “basic facts”
when “the facts are patent, or when the plaintiff has equal opportunity for obtaining
information that he may be expected to utilize if he cares to do so,” and where the defendant
“may reasonably expect the plaintiff to make his own investigation, draw his own
conclusions and protect himself.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 551 cmt. k (Am. Law
Inst. 1977).
3
In its Response, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs cannot state a claim under § 551(2)(b)
of the Restatement because Defendant never made any affirmative representation that
would qualify as a statement of fact. Without such a statement, Defendant argues that
Plaintiffs cannot show that Defendant had “a duty to disclose the additional information
-3-

1

to Plaintiffs’ case in the event that a jury finds they did not share a confidential relationship

2

with Defendant, thus disposing of their claim for constructive fraud. Under this line of

3

reasoning, Plaintiffs’ claim for fraudulent omissions (nondisclosure) should have survived

4

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. See Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir.

5

2009) (finding that when analyzing a complaint for failure to state a claim for relief under

6

Rule 12(b)(6), the well-pled factual allegations are taken as true and construed in the light

7

most favorable to the nonmoving party).

8

II.

Motion for Leave to File Counterclaims

9

On June 6, 2019, Defendant filed a Motion for Leave to File Counterclaims

10

(Doc. 81, Mot. for Counterclaims). Defendant seeks permission under Fed. R. Civ. P.

11

15(a)(2) to amend its Answer to include five permissive counterclaims for trademark

12

infringement, federal unfair competition, common law unfair competition, federal

13

cybersquatting, and breach of contract. (Doc. 81-1 at 6–8.) But Defendant’s Motion comes

14

long after the deadline for amended pleadings, set for September 14, 2018. (Doc. 44 at 2.)

15

While the Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery (Doc. 62) and thereafter

16

entered a revised Scheduling Order (Doc. 73), that Scheduling Order did not set a new

17

deadline for amended pleadings. Instead, the revised Scheduling Order, which was adopted

18

from the parties’ proposed Order, listed the deadline as “n/a.” (Doc. 73 at 2.) Thus, the

19

September 14, 2018 deadline was unchanged and neither party contemplated amending

20

their pleadings any further.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

necessary to prevent [the statement] from misleading the recipient.” (Doc. 111 at 4 (quoting
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 551, cmt. g)). But while the Court found that Defendant
and its agents made no affirmative representations that would be actionable for Plaintiffs’
proposed fraudulent representation claim, Defendant cannot plausibly argue that Plaintiffs
failed to sufficiently allege that Defendant and its agents made representations of some
sort. For example, each subsequent version of Plaintiffs’ Complaint has included
allegations that Defendant’s representative, Mr. Snyder, provided them with a list of
possible institutional customers in the Phoenix market, including Arizona State University.
The Court found that the statement—which, on its face, was merely a suggestion of future
business success—could not qualify as a fraudulent representation for purposes of that tort
claim. But the Court finds that, under § 551(b)(2), the statement is sufficient to qualify as
a “partial or ambiguous statement of the facts,” which was plausibly rendered misleading
by the omission of the detail that Arizona State University had vowed to stop purchasing
any Steinway pianos. At the Motion to Dismiss stage, Plaintiffs have done enough to
plausibly allege that Defendant’s omissions constitute the tort of nondisclosure.
-4-

1

While a party may still amend a pleading after the deadline set in a Scheduling

2

Order, Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 dictates that “[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause

3

and with the judge’s consent.” Thus, once a deadline for amended pleadings has passed,

4

the Court may consider whether amendment would be proper under Rule 15 only after a

5

party has shown good cause under Rule 16. Under the Rule 16 “good cause” standard,

6

“[t]he district court may modify the pretrial schedule if it cannot reasonably be met despite

7

the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Johnson v. Mammoth Rec., Inc., 975 F.2d

8

604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation omitted). And “[a]lthough the existence or

9

degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification might supply additional reasons

10

to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking

11

modification.” Id.

12

Defendant argues that it was diligent in seeking to add counterclaims and that it

13

could not have done so any earlier than when it filed its Motion on June 24, 2019. (Reply

14

at 8.) Defendant alleges it was mere days before that when its current Phoenix dealership

15

owner alerted Defendant that Plaintiffs were still operating the website which Defendant

16

alleges constitutes trademark infringement. (Reply at 10.) But the Court finds that

17

Defendant fails to show that its “noncompliance with a Rule 16 deadline occurred . . .

18

because of the development of matters which could not have been reasonably foreseen or

19

anticipated at the time of the Rule 16 scheduling conference.” Morgal v. Maricopa Cty.

20

Bd. Of Supervisors, 284 F.R.D. 452, 460 (D. Ariz. 2012) (quoting Grant v. United States,

21

11-CV-00360-LKK-KJN, 2011 WL 5554878 at *4 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2011). Similarly,

22

Defendant does not carry its burden to show that it “was diligent in seeking amendment of

23

the Rule 16 order, once it became apparent that [it] could not comply with the order.” Id.

24

Plaintiffs have owned and operated the domain name at issue since at least 2017.

25

And while Defendant may be correct that ownership of a domain name, without use of it,

26

does not give rise to trademark infringement liability, Defendant does not argue that

27

Plaintiff was not using its website for the last two years. Rather, Defendant argues that

28

“[w]hile [Defendant] was previously aware of Plaintiff’s prior registration of

-5-

1

www.steinwayarizona.com, it was unaware that Plaintiffs continued to use the domain

2

name in 2018 and 2019.” (Reply at 8.) It is not enough that Defendant was ignorant of the

3

continued use of the domain name. In order to show it was diligent, Defendant must have

4

shown it believed Plaintiffs had ceased use of the website and had only recently resumed

5

using it, thereby escaping even the most diligent observation. Arguing that it always knew

6

Plaintiffs owned the domain name and simply failed to check the publicly available website

7

for two years does not constitute diligence.

8

Further, to the extent that the Court may consider prejudice to Plaintiffs, see

9

Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609, it takes seriously the risk of prejudice here. Defendant’s

10

counterclaims, brought nearly ten months after the revised Rule 16 Scheduling Order that

11

parties agreed upon, would force Plaintiffs to undertake an even longer discovery schedule

12

than the current version, which was previously stayed at Defendant’s request. (Doc. 62.)

13

And even if Defendant chooses to pursue its trademark and breach of contract actions in a

14

separate action, “this is an insufficient reason for finding good cause under Rule 16(b)

15

absent a showing of diligence.” Bohn v. Pharmavite, LLC, 11-CV-10430-GHK, 2013 WL

16

12246336 at *3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2013) (denying a motion to file an amended complaint

17

even where “the practical reality is that [the plaintiff] will likely file a new action should

18

we deny this Motion, possibly resulting in duplicative litigation”). After all, “[a] scheduling

19

order is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by

20

counsel without peril.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 610 (internal citation omitted). Based on

21

Defendant’s lack of diligence and other contributing factors, the Court will deny

22

Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Counterclaims. If Defendant wishes to pursue its

23

claims for trademark infringement and breach of contract, it must do so in a separate action.

24

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration

25

(Doc. 75). The Court vacates the portion of its May 1, 2019 Order on Defendant’s Motion

26

to Dismiss (Doc. 74) pertaining to Plaintiffs’ Count II for fraudulent representations and

27

omissions. Count II, premised on Defendant’s alleged nondisclosure, may proceed along

28

with Plaintiffs’ other surviving claims.

-6-

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot Defendant’s Motion for

2

Reconsideration (Doc. 102). Having read Defendant’s Response (Doc. 111) to Plaintiffs’

3

Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 75), the Court evaluated both Plaintiff’s Motion and the

4

Response together and found for the Plaintiffs.

5
6
7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot Defendant’s Motion to Expedite
Consideration of Motion for Leave to File Counterclaims (Doc. 94).
Dated this 9th day of August, 2019.

8
9

Honorable John J. Tuchi
United States District Judge

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

-7-