United Tactical Systems, LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc. et al

Filing 444

ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James denying 410 Motion for Leave to File. (mejlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/26/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
UNITED TACTICAL SYSTEMS, LLC,

7

Case No. 14-cv-04050-MEJ

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
REAL ACTION PAINTBALL, INC., et al.,

10

Defendants.

ORDER RE: RENEWED MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSES
Re: Dkt. No. 410

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
INTRODUCTION

13
14

The Court has twice denied Defendants and Counterclaimants Real Action Paintball, Inc.

15

and K.T. Tran‟s (together, “Real Action”) requests to file a first amended answer and affirmative

16

defenses. First First Am. Answer (“FAA”) Order (“First FAA Order”), Dkt. No. 277; Second

17

FAA Order, Dkt. No. 396. Real Action has filed a second Renewed Motion for Leave to File a

18

First Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

19

15(a) and 16. Mot., Dkt. No. 410. Plaintiff United Tactical Systems, LLC (“UTS”) and related

20

Counter-Defendants1 (together with UTS, “Counter-Defendants”) filed an Opposition (Dkt. No.

21

422) and Real Action filed a Reply (Dkt. No. 439). Having considered the parties‟ positions, the

22

relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, the Court DENIES the Motion for the

23

following reasons.2

24
25
26
27
28

1

Counter-Defendants are Advanced Tactical Ordnance Systems, LLC; Gary Gibson; Perfect
Circle Projectiles LLC; Tactical Air Games, Inc.; Tyler Tiberius; United Tactical Systems
Holdings, LLC; and United Tactical Systems Intermediate Holdings, LLC.
2

Although Real Action‟s Motion lists a hearing date of June 29, 2017, Real Action did not
properly calendar the hearing. In any event, the Court finds this matter suitable for disposition
without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).

BACKGROUND

1
2
3
4

The Court‟s prior Orders set forth a detailed factual and procedural history of this action.
See Order re: Mots. for Summ. J. (“MSJ Order”), Dkt. No. 348; Second FAA Order.
As is relevant to this Motion, on August 26, 2016, the Court denied Real Action‟s first

5

Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Answer. See First FAA Order at 8-9; First FAA Mot.,

6

Dkt. No. 247. Real Action sought to assert two new affirmative defenses based on “release” and

7

on statute of limitations grounds. Id. at 8; First Proposed FAA at 34-35, Dkt. No. 247-1. The

8

Court found Real Action failed to provide an adequate factual basis for its defenses, which

9

precluded the Court from “weigh[ing] the factors associated with determining whether leave
should be granted.” See First FAA Order at 8-9. In addition, the Court found Real Action failed

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

to provide a basis for why justice required the amendment. Id. at 9. The Court accordingly denied

12

Real Action‟s Motion without prejudice. Id.

13

Five months later, Real Action again moved for leave to amend its Answer to assert

14

affirmative defenses based on a release and on statute of limitations grounds. Second FAA Mot.,

15

Dkt. No. 335; see Second Proposed FAA at 34-35, Dkt. No. 355-1. The Court denied this Motion

16

as well. See Second FAA Order. The Court found Real Action had unduly delayed in seeking

17

amendment and that UTS would be prejudiced if Real Action were permitted to amend its

18

Answer. Id. at 4-8. The Court also noted Real Action had filed its Motion long after the July 14,

19

2016 deadline to amend the pleadings. Id. at 9 (“Whereas Real Action first moved to amend prior

20

to the amended pleadings deadline, it filed the [second] Motion approximately six months after the

21

deadline.”); see Case Management Order, Dkt. No. 218. Real Action had not, however, complied

22

with Civil Local Rule 16-2(d) which, along with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, sets forth the

23

requirements for seeking relief from a case management order. Second FAA Order at 9-10. The

24

Court found that this, coupled with the undue delay and prejudice, warranted denial of the Motion.

25

Id. at 10.

26
27

Now for a third time, Real Action seeks leave to amend its Answer to assert two
affirmative defenses:

28
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff‟s claims are barred because Plaintiff‟s predecessor-ininterest, Advanced Tactical Ordnance Systems, LLC released Real
Action Paintball, Inc. from all claims it had against it by operation
of a certain Confidential Settlement Agreement and Mutual General
Release (“Settlement Agreement”) that released a partner of Real
Action, Conrad Sun. Because Plaintiff is asserting claims that it
alleges to have acquired from Advanced Tactical Ordnance Systems,
LLC, those claims do not exist because Advanced Tactical
Ordnance Systems, LLC released Real Action. Because Plaintiff‟s
claims against defendant K.T. Tran are predicated on him being
vicariously liable for claims against Real Action Paintball, Inc. those
claims are also subject to this defense of release.

11

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
One or more of Plaintiff‟s claims is barred by the applicable statute
of limitations, including the two-year statute of limitations for
claims under the Lanham Act, because the operative facts pleaded in
the Complaint occurred more than two years before ATO and UTS
filed their complaints against Real Action Paintball, Inc. and K.T.
Tran.

12

Third Proposed FAA at 34-35, Dkt. No. 410-1 (emphasis in original). These proposed affirmative

13

defenses are largely the same as the affirmative defenses Real Action sought to assert twice

14

before. See First Proposed FAA at 34-35; Second Proposed FAA at 34-35.

9

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

15
16

DISCUSSION
UTS characterizes Real Action‟s Motion as “simply a restatement of the evidence and

17

arguments that formed the basis of its previous „renewed‟ motion, with some additional arguments

18

asserted for the first time in response to the Court‟s recent ruling denying its motion to amend.”

19

Opp‟n at 7. UTS argues the Motion is in fact a motion for reconsideration, which should be

20

denied for Real Action‟s failure to abide by Civil Local Rule 7-9‟s requirement that Real Action

21

seek leave of Court to file the motion. Id.; see Civ. L.R. 79-(a) (“No party may notice a motion

22

for reconsideration without first obtaining leave of Court to file the motion.”). Real Action

23

disputes the characterization of its Motion as one for reconsideration because “Real Action has

24

never argued granting leave is supported by Rule 16, so the [C]ourt has never considered these

25

arguments.” Reply at 4. As such, Real Action argues “[t]here has not been a ruling on these

26

arguments, so there is no such ruling to be „reconsidered.‟” Id.

27

Real Action offers no credible argument as to why it did not discuss Federal Rule of Civil

28

Procedure 16 in its Second FAA Motion. Real Action explains it “mistakenly believed the Court
3

1

had authorized the filing of a renewed motion for leave to amend that need only comply with the

2

relatively low threshold of Rule 15(a)(2)[.]” Mot. at 7. Real Action‟s counsel thus “mistakenly

3

concluded” that the Court‟s First FAA Order “trumped an obligation to comply with Rule 16.” Id.
This assertion is unsupported by declaration. Nor is it plausible. While the Court denied

4
5

the First FAA Motion without prejudice, the Court gave no indication that “only” Federal Rule of

6

Civil Procedure 15 would apply to any future motion for leave to file an amended answer. See

7

First FAA Order. Given that Real Action was aware of the amended pleadings deadline and

8

because it filed its Second FAA Motion after it had expired, it should have known that Federal

9

Rule of Civil Procedure 16 would apply. See Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294
(9th Cir. 2000) (“Generally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) liberally allows for

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

amendments to pleadings. In this case, however, the district court correctly found that it should

12

address the issue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 because it had filed a pretrial

13

scheduling order that established a timetable for amending the pleadings, and the deadline had

14

expired before [the plaintiffs] moved to amend.”).

15

Real Action offers no other explanation as to why it did not address Federal Rule of Civil

16

Procedure 16 in its Second FAA Motion, or why the Court should consider its Rule 16 arguments

17

now. The Court finds the instant Motion is simply an attempt for Real Action to raise an argument

18

that was previously available to it, but which it failed to address in a timely fashion. To the extent

19

the Court could construe it as a motion for reconsideration, it does not fall under one of the

20

grounds set forth in Civil Local Rule 7-9(b).3

21
3

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Civil Local Rule 7-9(b) provides that
The moving party must specifically show reasonable diligence in
bringing the motion, and one of the following:
(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in
fact or law exists from that which was presented to the Court before
entry of the interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought.
The party also must show that in the exercise of reasonable diligence
the party applying for reconsideration did not know such fact or law
at the time of the interlocutory order; or
(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law
occurring after the time of such order; or
(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or
dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court
before such interlocutory order.
4

1

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Motion.4

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
4

Dated: June 26, 2017
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
4

24
25
26
27
28

This Order does not preclude Real Action from raising the statute of limitations in its Motions
for Summary Judgment. See Camarillo v. McCarthy, 998 F.2d 638, 639 (9th Cir. 1993) (“In the
absence of a showing of prejudice, however, an affirmative defense may be raised for the first time
at summary judgment.” (citing Rivera v. Anaya, 726 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1984)); see also
Donell v. Keppers, 835 F. Supp. 2d 871, 877 (S.D. Cal. 2011) (“Although the statute of limitations
is ordinarily an affirmative defense that the defendant must raise at the pleadings stage and that is
subject to rules of forfeiture and waiver, district courts may dismiss an action sua sponte on
limitations grounds in certain circumstances where the facts supporting the statute of limitations
defense are set forth in the papers plaintiff himself submitted.” (quoting Walters v. Indus. &
Commercial Bank of China, Ltd., 651 F.3d 280, 293 (2d Cir. 2011)).
5