Worley v. Avanquest North America Inc

Filing 163

ORDER DENYING 144 MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND 151 TO ENFORCE VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL, AND GRANTING PLAINTIFFS LEAVE TO AMEND by Judge William H. Orrick. Plaintiffs are directed to file a second amended complaint substituting the claims describing System Suite in place of the claims describing Fix-It in the First Amended Complaint no later than 7 days from the date of this order. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/14/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 JOHNNY BOYD, et al., 5 Case No. 12-cv-04391-WHO Plaintiffs, 6 v. 7 AVANQUEST NORTH AMERICA INC, 8 Defendant. 9 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND TO ENFORCE VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL, AND GRANTING PLAINTFFS LEAVE TO AMEND Re: Dkt. Nos. 144, 151 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Johnny Boyd mistakenly thought that he had purchased defective Fix-it Utilities Professional (“Fix-It”) software instead of System Suite PC Tune-up & Repair (“System Suite”) when he joined a class action over one and one-half years ago against the designer of the software, Avanquest North America Inc. (“Avanquest”). Boyd’s co-class representative, Benson Worley, had previously been pursuing claims related to System Suite. On August 25, 2014, Worley dismissed his claims with prejudice, and the Stipulation for Voluntary Dismissal states both that the claims against System Suite are dismissed without prejudice and that they will no longer be at 18 issue in this action, leaving only Boyd’s claims concerning Fix-It. But a few days after the 19 dismissal, Boyd realized that he had bought System Suite, not Fix-It, and notified Avanquest that 20 he wanted to amend his complaint.1 21 The parties’ voluntary dismissal of System Suite claims without prejudice does not prevent 22 Boyd from amending the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) to include claims involving System 23 Suite. Under these unusual circumstances, where Boyd acted in good faith and discovered his 24 mistake shortly after the dismissal, where the issues Boyd seeks to litigate have been an integral 25 part of the case’s development thus far, and where there will be no impact on the trial date, Boyd 26 1 27 28 Although plaintiffs have not filed a formal motion to amend the First Amended Complaint, I will address their request to amend as set forth in the opposition to Avanquest’s motion to dismiss, and the accompanying exhibits. See Oppo. at 1-13 (Dkt. No. 157); Richman Decl., Ex. 1-A (Dkt. No. 157-1). 1 has satisfied the requirements for leave to amend pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15 2 and 16. For these reasons, I DENY Avanquest’s motion to enforce the parties’ voluntary 3 dismissal, and GRANT Boyd leave to amend the FAC as set forth in his opposition brief. Because 4 the second amended complaint cures any jurisdictional deficiencies in this case, I also DENY 5 Avanquest’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.2 BACKGROUND 6 Worley filed this suit as the representative of a class of consumers who bought either Fix-It 7 8 or System Suite, substantially similar software programs designed by Avanquest to improve 9 computer function. FAC ¶¶ 17-19 (Dkt. No. 52). Worley contended that Avanquest fraudulently induced consumers to buy these products, which erroneously diagnose computers with a host of 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 problems. Compl. ¶¶ 1-8 (Dkt. No. 1); FAC ¶¶ 31-32. Worley alleged violations of (i) 12 California’s unfair competition law; (ii) fraudulent inducement; (iii) breach of express warranties; 13 (iv) breach of contract; and (v) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. 14 Compl. at 1. 15 On November 30, 2012, Avanquest filed a motion to dismiss Worley’s complaint, which 16 Judge Illston granted in part and denied in part. Dkt. No. 48. The order noted that there were no 17 allegations regarding Fix-It and that Worley only alleged that he had purchased System Suite. Id. 18 at 1. Subsequently, the parties agreed to add Boyd as a named plaintiff in the action and the 19 plaintiffs filed the FAC. Order Granting Stipulation (Dkt. No. 51). The FAC alleged that Worley 20 had purchased System Suite and that Boyd had purchased Fix-It. FAC ¶¶ 46, 54. The court 21 denied another motion to dismiss the FAC and the parties proceeded to discovery. Dkt. No. 66. 22 Once the case was transferred to me, I issued a pretrial scheduling order on October 1, 2013, and 23 set a deadline to file motions to join parties or amend pleadings for January 10, 2014. Dkt. No. 24 110. On August 25, 2014, the parties filed a joint stipulation for voluntary dismissal of Worley 25 26 as plaintiff and of all claims related to System Suite. Dkt. No. 143. But shortly afterwards, the 27 2 28 Pursuant to Local Rule 7–1(b), this matter is suitable for determination without oral argument and I vacated the hearing scheduled for October 15, 2014. 2 1 plaintiffs discovered that Boyd bought and installed System Suite, and not Fix-It, on his computer. 2 Richman Decl. ¶¶ 24-25 (Dkt. No. 157-1). Avanquest asserts that this means there is no subject 3 matter jurisdiction and seeks to enforce the voluntary dismissal of claims relating to System Suite. 4 Dkt. Nos. 151-1, 144, 145. It argues that Boyd does not have standing to assert claims relating to 5 System Suite, and that he cannot amend his complaint to include claims involving System Suite. 6 Dkt. Nos. 151-1, 144, 145. In response, plaintiffs express their intention to substitute claims 7 relating to System Suite for those relating to Fix-It in the FAC, thus curing any jurisdictional 8 deficiency. Richman Decl., Ex. 1-A. LEGAL STANDARD 9 10 Once the district court has issued a scheduling order, a party seeking leave to amend its United States District Court Northern District of California 11 pleadings must satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 if amendment 12 would impact any of the deadlines set by the scheduling order. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 13 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992). Rule 16 requires that the party requesting leave to 14 amend show “good cause” for its failure to amend by the time set in the scheduling order. Id. at 15 608. “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking 16 the amendment. The district court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot reasonably be 17 met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” Id. at 609 (internal citations and 18 quotations omitted). 19 If the party seeking leave to amend satisfies Rule 16, it must then satisfy Federal Rule of 20 Civil Procedure 15. Id. at 608. Under Rule 15, courts should grant leave to amend freely, “unless 21 amendment would cause prejudice to the opposing party, is sought in bad faith, is futile, or creates 22 undue delay.” Id. at 607. 23 Parties may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order pursuant to Federal Rule of 24 Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). A voluntary dismissal “leaves the situation as if the action never 25 had been filed.” City of South Pasadena v. Mineta, 284 F.3d 1154, 1157 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal 26 citations and quotations omitted). 27 28 3 1 DISCUSSION 2 3 4 5 6 I. MOTION TO ENFORCE THE VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS RELATED TO SYSTEM SUITE Avanquest claims that the parties’ stipulation for voluntary dismissal precludes this court from allowing Boyd to amend his complaint to include allegations relating to System Suite.3 Dkt. No. 151-1 at 5-6. The stipulation for voluntary dismissal of claims states that “Worley’s 7 individual claims against Avanquest in this action shall be dismissed with prejudice.” Dkt. No. 8 143 at 1. It further provides: “[t]he claims of the putative class related to Avanquest’s System 9 Suite software shall be dismissed without prejudice, that the System Suite software shall no longer 10 be at issue in this action and all claims related to all versions of the System Suite software shall be 11 United States District Court Northern District of California dismissed from the above-captioned action.” Id. The stipulation does not specify whether the 12 System Suite claims are dismissed with or without leave to amend. 13 Parties may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order pursuant to Federal Rule of 14 Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Avanquest correctly asserts that voluntary dismissals pursuant to 15 this rule are self-executing, and that once the action is dismissed the court may no longer exercise 16 jurisdiction over it. See, e.g., Commercial Space Mgmt. Co. v. Boeing Co., 193 F.3d 1074, 107717 78 (9th Cir. 1999). But these principles do not prevent Boyd from amending his present 18 complaint. Avanquest’s argument to the contrary rests on inapposite cases that focus on the 19 possibility of courts retaining jurisdiction over actions dismissed pursuant to Rule 41, such as to 20 carry over a waiver of immunity or to alter the conditions of dismissal. See, e.g., Cadkin v. Loose, 21 569 F.3d 1142, 1149-50 (9th Cir. 2009); Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077-78. 22 These cases would be on point for Worley, not Boyd. 23 I am not exercising jurisdiction over the action and claims involving Worley and System 24 Suite that were dismissed, but focusing on the remaining action involving Boyd and Fix-It. Courts 25 treat claims dismissed pursuant to Rule 41, such as those relating to System Suite, as though they 26 27 3 28 In support of this motion, Avanquest also requests judicial notice of several documents filed in the docket for this case, which I grant. See Dkt. Nos. 145, 147, 152. 4 1 2 were never filed. Commercial Space Mgmt., 193 F.3d at 1077. Avanquest argues that the parties’ negotiations and waiver of fees reflect their intent that 3 the System Suite claims be dismissed without leave to amend. Reply Mot. to Enforce at 4-5 (Dkt. 4 No. 161). The parties did not include this language in the stipulated voluntary dismissal, and 5 plaintiffs dispute Avanquest’s assertion. Because the claims involving System Suite were 6 dismissed without prejudice, Boyd is not precluded from re-filing claims relating to System Suite 7 or alternatively amending the claims in the current action to include System Suite. 8 II. MOTION TO DISMISS 9 In order to resolve Avanquest’s motion to dismiss, I must first determine whether Boyd may amend his complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15 and 16. I issued a scheduling 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 order that set the deadline for amendment of the complaints for January 10, 2014. Dkt. No. 110. 12 Boyd’s request to amend the FAC was made well after this time, on September 19, 2014. Oppo. 13 at 1 (Dkt. No. 157). Therefore, Boyd must satisfy Rule 15 as well as the good cause standard of 14 Rule 16. Under Rule 16, Boyd must show good cause for his failure to comply with the deadlines 15 set out in the 2013 scheduling order. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. Rule 16’s requirements are 16 intended to prevent “meaningful case management issues” and to “facilitate judicial control over a 17 case.” C.F. v. Capistrano Unified School Dist., 656 F. Supp. 2d 1190, 1197 (C.D. Cal. 2009). 18 Although the focus of a Rule 16 analysis is upon the diligence of the party seeking to amend, “the 19 existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification might supply additional 20 reasons to deny a motion.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. 21 According to both parties, Boyd’s untimely request for amendment results from his 22 mistaken belief that he had bought and installed Fix-It—and not System Suite—on his computer. 23 Richman Decl. ¶¶ 24-25; Reply Mot. Dismiss at 2 (Dkt. No. 160). Avanquest contends that the 24 plaintiffs’ attorneys’ repeated failure to inspect Boyd’s computer amounts to a lack of diligence 25 that cannot satisfy the Rule 16 standard. Reply to Mot. Dismiss at 13-15. Although the plaintiffs 26 should have verified Boyd’s claims regarding which software he installed, the programs may be 27 easily confused with one another. See FAC ¶¶ 18-19. Boyd moved to amend shortly after 28 learning of this mistake. The current pretrial schedule will not be greatly altered by granting 5 1 Boyd’s request. The parties are in the midst of discovery, which has been stayed, and have yet to 2 take depositions. See Order re: Disc. and Case Mgmt. at 1-2 (Dkt. No. 155). Furthermore, there is little prejudice to Avanquest. The claims involving System Suite 3 4 were part of this action until August, 25, 2014. Magistrate Judge Beeler stayed discovery on 5 September 11, 2014, though Avanquest was aware of Boyd’s intent to amend his pleadings as 6 early as September 5, 2014. See Order re: Disc. and Case Mgmt. at 2; Strickland Decl., Ex. 4 7 (Dkt. No. 151-3 at 15). At most, a little over two weeks passed during which Avanquest may have 8 declined to pursue discovery related to System Suite.4 Allowing Boyd to amend would not require 9 continuing the trial date. Avanquest emphasizes the substantial time and money that it has dedicated to defending 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 the to-be-abandoned Fix-It claims. See Reply Mot. to Enforce 4; Reply Mot. Dismiss 14-15. That 12 is no doubt true, but those costs have already been incurred for a now abandoned claim. They do 13 not constitute future prejudice for purposes of the analysis of whether to allow Boyd to amend his 14 complaint. Dismissal, on the other hand, would require the parties to refile and redo the pleadings 15 and discovery in a new case on issues already developed here, causing delay in the administration 16 of justice and an unnecessarily inefficient and costly result. See FED. R. CIV. P. 1. While this is a close case, given the unusual circumstance that the identical claims Boyd 17 18 seeks to litigate have been at issue throughout the litigation, as well as the fact that his mistake 19 was clearly inadvertent and there will be no impact on the trial date, Boyd may amend the FAC 20 pursuant to Rule 16 as well as under the more liberal standard for Rule 15. I GRANT leave to amend the FAC as described in Exhibit 1-A filed with the plaintiffs’ 21 22 opposition brief on September 19, 2014. Because both parties agree that Boyd does not have Fix- 23 It installed on his computer, and that he never purchased that software, the claims relating to Fix-It 24 are dismissed and replaced with claims relating to System Suite. Avanquest does not present any argument that Boyd would lack standing if allowed to 25 26 4 27 28 This case is unlike Contreras v UAL Corp, 2014 US Dist LEXIS 15953 (N.D.Cal. Feb. 7, 2014), on which Avanquest relies, since the harassment claim at issue there had been dismissed for more than three years and substantial discovery had already occurred under the assumption that the claim was not in the case. 6 1 amend the FAC. In light of my ruling that Boyd may amend the FAC to include claims involving 2 System Suite, dismissal for lack of standing is not appropriate. Therefore, Avanquest’s motion to 3 dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is DENIED. 4 CONCLUSION 5 Defendant’s motion to enforce the parties’ stipulated voluntary dismissal is DENIED, as is 6 its motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or alternatively for an OSC re: 7 dismissal. Plaintiffs’ opposition motion is treated as a motion for leave to amend, which is 8 GRANTED. Plaintiffs are directed to file a second amended complaint substituting the claims 9 describing System Suite in place of the claims describing Fix-It in the FAC no later than 7 days 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 from the date of this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 14, 2014 ______________________________________ WILLIAM H. ORRICK United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?