Zetor North America, Inc. v. Rozeboom et al

Filing 135

OPINION AND ORDER granting 119 Motion to Amend/Correct; granting 120 Motion for Leave to File. Defendants are DIRECTED to immediately file the proposed amended answer and counterclaim, which were attached to the Motions. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on December 11, 2017. (rg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HARRISON DIVISION
PLAINTIFF

ZETOR NORTH AMERICA, INC.

V.

CASE NO. 3: 15-CV-03035

BRENT ROZEBOOM, individually and d/b/a
Ridgeway Enterprises, and as director
of Alberni Enterprises;
GLENDA ROZEBOOM, individually and d/b/a
Ridgeway Enterprises;
RIDGEWAY ENTERPRISES, a private trust company;
ALAN SCOTT PETERSON, individually
and as Executive Trustee of Ridgeway Enterprises;
ANTONIE (a.k.a. Tony) ROZEBOOM;
and ALBERNI ENTERPRISES, a private trust company

DEFENDANTS

OPINION AND ORDER

Now pending before the Court are a Motion for Leave to File Amended. Answer
(Doc. 119) and Motion for Leave to File Counterclaim (Doc. 120), submitted by Defendants
Brent Rozeboom, Glenda Rozeboom, Ridgeway Enterprises, and Alan Scott Peterson.
The Motions were submitted on the deadline to seek leave to amend pleadings, as
established in the Court's Case Management Order.

See Doc. 116.

These four

Defendants wish to collectively file an amended answer as well as a counterclaim that lists
causes of action for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, breach of contract, and
abuse o_f process.
Plaintiff Zetor North America, Inc. opposes both Motions. See Docs. 121, 122. It
argues that Defendants' primary aim in seeking to file these documents is to improperly "reinsert the terms of the 2009 settlement agreement between the parties into the issues of
this case .... " (Doc. 121, p. 1). Plaintiff argues that "the Court has already determined
the referenced settlement agreement is not material to the issues in this case," so

Defendants cannot rely on any aspect of the settlement agreement in asserting new
affirmative defenses and a counterclaim. Id.
Previously, the Court ruled on a defense motion to compel arbitration and found that
the.arbitration clause in the settlement agreement was inapplicable to the instant dispute.
See Doc. 96. The Court's ruling on arbitration was then appealed, and the Eighth Circuit
affirmed the Court's order. See Doc. 111-1. Plaintiff now believes it is "law of the case"
that all of the terms of the parties' settlement agreement are inapplicable to the instant
action-not just the arbitration clause. After considering Plaintiff's argument, as well· as
Defendants' Replies (Docs. 127, 128), the Court finds that Plaintiff is mistaken, and the
Court's order on arbitration was not intended to have such a sweeping effect.
The Amended Complaint (Doc. 21) does not include any claims against Defendants
that arise from the 2009 settlement agreement. Plaintiff does not, for example, accuse
Defendants of breaching the settlement agreement. For this reason, the Court noted in its
arbitration order that the agreement was "immaterial" to the claims asserted by Plaintiff.
See Doc. 96, p. 7 (emphasis added).

The Court also observed, however, that the

settlement agreement set forth certain limited circumstances in which Defendants would
be legally permitted to use the Zetor mark. See id. at 4. It appears that Defendants now
seek to argue in the case at bar that their use of the Zetor mark after the settlement
agreement was signed was entirely legal and fell under one of the designated exceptions. 1
The Eighth Circuit has previously held that a district court enjoys broad discretion
to permit a party to file an amended pleading, and that the denial of a motion for leave to

1

The Court expresses no opinion or endorsement as to the merits of this argument.

2

amend is ordinarily predicated on "a finding of undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive,
repeated failure to cure deficiencies in previous amendments, undue prejudice to the
non-moving party, or futility." Baptist Health v. Smith , 477 F.3d 540, 544 (8th Cir. 2007).
Here, the Court finds that Defendants' request for leave to amend their answer and file a
counterclaim was timely filed and does not appear to be futile.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Amended
Answer (Doc. 119) and Motion for Leave to File Counterclaim (Doc. 120) are GRANTED.
Defendants are DIRECTED to immediately file the proposed amended answer and
counterclaim, which were attached to the Motions.

-t~
IT IS SO ORDERED on this 11..:- ay of Dece
d

3