Linde, LLC v. Valley Protein, LLC et al

Filing 78

ORDER Vacating Status Conference, Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Amend 77 and Entering Judgment, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/5/19. CASE CLOSED. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

LINDE, LLC,

13
14
15

No. 1:16-cv-00527-DAD-EPG
Plaintiff,

v.
VALLEY PROTEIN, LLC,

16

ORDER VACATING STATUS
CONFERENCE, GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO AMEND, AND ENTERING
JUDGMENT

Defendant.
(Doc. No. 77)

17
18
19
20

VALLEY PROTEIN, LLC,
Counter-claimant,

21
22
23
24

v.
LINDE, LLC,
Counter-defendant.

25
26
27

On July 11, 2019, the undersigned granted in part the motion for summary judgment filed
by plaintiff and counter-defendant Linde, LLC (“Linde”). (Doc. No. 76.) As relevant here, the

28
1

1

court granted summary judgment in Linde’s favor as to all claims and counter-claims except

2

Linde’s claim against defendant and counter-claimant Valley Protein, LLC (“Valley Protein”) for

3

breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. (Id. at 40–41.) Because that cause

4

of action remained unresolved, the court declined to enter judgment at that time. However, the

5

court also noted that if Linde sought entry of judgment in its favor, it could voluntarily withdraw

6

that cause of action, at which time judgment in Linde’s favor would appropriately be entered. (Id.

7

at 41.) On July 31, 2019, Linde filed an application for dismissal of its cause of action for breach

8

of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. (Doc. No. 77.)

9

When a party seeks to dismiss some, but not all, of its claims, Federal Rule of Civil

10

Procedure 15 applies rather than Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. Gen. Signal Corp. v. MCI

11

Telecomms. Corp., 66 F.3d 1500, 1513 (9th Cir. 1995). In analyzing whether leave to amend

12

should be granted under Rule 15, courts consider five factors: (1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3)

13

prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of amendment, and (5) whether the plaintiff has

14

previously amended the complaint. United States v. Corinthian Colls., 655 F.3d 984, 995 (9th

15

Cir. 2011) (citing Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004)). “Prejudice to the

16

opposing party is the most important factor.” Jackson v. Bank of Haw., 902 F.3d 1385, 1397 (9th

17

Cir. 1990) (citing Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 330–31 (1971)).

18

All five factors support amendment in this case. No bad faith is apparent here because

19

Linde is simply seeking to have this case resolved in a timely manner. In addition, Linde’s filing

20

indicates that it sought to withdraw its cause of action by way of stipulation, but that Valley

21

Protein declined to stipulate. (Doc. No. 77 at 6.) Nor does the court find any undue delay—

22

Linde’s filing indicates that it sought to enter into a stipulation with Valley Protein to dismiss its

23

cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing on July 18, 2019

24

and received a response on July 29, 2019. (Id.) Linde’s application to dismiss that cause of

25

action was filed two days thereafter, indicating that Linde has acted expeditiously in seeking to do

26

so. Third, the court finds no prejudice to Valley Protein because “[i]t is axiomatic that prejudice

27

does not attach to a claim that is properly dropped from a complaint under Rule 15(a) prior to

28

final judgment.” Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 690 (9th Cir.
2

1

2005). Fourth, amendment is plainly not futile because Linde is not seeking to add new claims.

2

Finally, a review of the docket indicates that Linde has never amended its complaint. Under these

3

circumstances, construed as a motion to amend, Linde’s application will be granted.

4

For these reasons,

5

1.

6
7

granted;
2.

8
9

3.

14
15
16

The status conference presently set for August 20, 2019 before the undersigned is
vacated;

4.

12
13

Linde’s second cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing is dismissed;

10
11

Linde’s application for dismissal (Doc. No. 77), construed as a motion to amend, is

Judgment is entered in favor of Linde, LLC and against Valley Protein, LLC in the
amount of $1,002,047.89; and

5.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 5, 2019
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3