Seed Services, Inc. v. Winsor Grain, Inc., et al

Filing 60

ORDER GRANTING 47 Motion to File Supplemental Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 1/11/2012. The First Supplemental Complaint (Doc. 47-2) is Deemed Filed as of the Date of This Order; The Clerk of the Court Shall File the First Supplemental Complaint as a Separate Entry in the Docket for Purposes of Clarifying the Record; Defendants' Answers Are Due 21 Days After the Date of This Order. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

SEED SERVICES, INC., a California
Corporation,
Plaintiff,

)
)
)
)
v.
)
)
WINDSOR GRAIN, INC., a Minnesota
)
corporation, WILLIAM L. COOK, an
)
individual, and DOES 1 through 35,
)
inclusive,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
WILLIAM COOK, an individual, and
)
WINDSOR GRAIN, INC., a Minnesota
)
corporation,
)
)
Counterclaimants
)
)
v.
)
)
SEED SERVICES, INC., a California
)
Corporation,
)
)
Counterdefendant.
)
____________________________________)

1:10-cv-2185 AWI GSA

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FILE
SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT

(Document 47)

22
On December 5, 2011, Plaintiff, Seed Services Inc., (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion for Leave
23
to File a First Amended Complaint. (“FAC”). Defendants, Windsor Grain, Inc., and William
24
Cook (“Defendants”), filed a non-opposition to the motion on December 30, 2011. (Doc. 58).
25
The Court has reviewed the papers and has determined that this matter is suitable for decision
26
without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). Accordingly, the hearing set for January
27
27, 2012, at 9:30 am was VACATED. Plaintiff’s Motion to File a Supplemental Complaint is
28
1

1
2

GRANTED.
Supplemental pleadings can be filed only with leave of the Court on just terms and may

3

be permitted in order to set out any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened after the date

4

of the initial pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d); Eid v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 621 F. 3d 858 (9th Cir.

5

2010). Moreover, the Court may order that the opposing party plead to the supplemental

6

pleading within a specified time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). Resolution of motions to file

7

supplemental pleadings are a matter of the trial court’s discretion. Keith v. Volpe, 858 F. 2d 467,

8

273 (9th Cir. 1988). The rule is a tool of judicial economy and its use is favored. Id.

9

Here, Plaintiff seeks to add new allegations and causes of action relating to events

10

occurring in November 2011, after the filing the complaint. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts new

11

causes of action for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and breach of contract. Given

12

these facts, the Court finds that the filing of the supplemental pleading is just. Moreover,

13

Defendants have filed a non-opposition to the motion.

14

Accordingly, the following IS HEREBY ORDERED:

15

1)

The First Supplemental Complaint is deemed filed as of the date of this order;

16

2)

The Clerk of the Court shall file the First Supplemental Complaint as a separate

17
18

entry in the docket for purposes of clarifying the record.(Doc. 47-2); and
3)

Defendants’ Answers are due 21 days after the date of this order.

19
20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
6i0kij

January 11, 2012

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2