Motekaitis et al v. USI Insurance Services National, Inc. et al

Filing 56

ORDER granting 46 Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint. Signed by Chief Judge Seeborg on January 7, 2025. (rslc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/7/2025)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

PAUL MOTEKAITIS, et al.,

Case No. 24-cv-00885-RS

Plaintiffs,
11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

v.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO AMEND

12
13

USI INSURANCE SERVICES NATIONAL,
INC., et al.,
Defendants.

14
15
16

I. INTRODUCTION

17

This case concerns averred defamation, tortious interference with business, blacklisting,

18

and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiffs, Paul Motekaitis and Carri Mangelli

19

Kneass, sued their former employer, USI Insurance Services, LLC, as well as several individuals

20

associated with company, after it terminated them and then emailed clients an explanation that cast

21

them in a bad light. Plaintiffs also aver that Marsh & McLennan Agency LLC and one of its

22

employees republished the allegedly defamatory email in an attempt to siphon away potential

23

business.

24

At present, Plaintiffs seek leave to amend their complaint for a third time, having already

25

done so once in accord with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and once more pursuant to

26

stipulation. As to this third bid for amended pleadings, Defendant USI opposes and Defendant

27

McLennan does not. For the reasons explained below, the motion for leave to file a third amended

28

complaint is granted.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

II. BACKGROUND

2

When discovery began in this case, Plaintiffs served Defendant USI with several requests,

3

including one which sought “[a]ll emails sent by USI staff to third parties regarding Plaintiffs’

4

terminations from USI,” including “Any and all copies, forwards, or pdf print-outs of a USI email

5

dated January 20, 2024 . . . with the subject line ‘LEADERSHIP CHANGE IN SAN

6

FRANCISCO BASED PRIVATE RISK MANAGEMENT GROUP’.” Nestor Decl., Dkt. No. 48-

7

1 at 2 (citing RFP No. 27). USI’s counsel met and conferred with Plaintiffs’ counsel and they

8

agreed that USI would produce a master list of recipients of the allegedly defamatory email (rather

9

than produce any other information or documents responsive to the requests). See id. at 3; see also

10

Nestor Decl., Ex. A, Dkt. No. 48-2 at 5 (letter explaining the parties’ agreement). Plaintiffs did

11

not contest the validity of that agreement at the time nor at any time thereafter.

12

USI produced a list of the recipients, as agreed. Subsequently, Plaintiffs requested

13

documents responsive to the original request (i.e., all copies, forwards, or pdf printouts of the

14

email). USI refused to provide it, having satisfied the earlier agreement. Plaintiffs did not dispute

15

the agreement’s validity, but nevertheless continued to press USI to comply with earlier requests.

16

A separate defendant, Cindy Gross, later produced documents responsive to a distinct discovery

17

request, including an email from Scott Pinette, a USI employee, that matches the description of

18

Plaintiffs’ initial discovery request—it is a forward of the January 20 email that allegedly defamed

19

Plaintiffs. See Pinette Email, Nestor Decl., Ex. B, Dkt. No. 48-3 at 2-3 (email thread).

20

Prior to the discovery of the Pinette email, Plaintiffs had already sought leave to amend

21

their complaint—first, as afforded by the Federal Rules of Procedure, and a second time via

22

stipulation. At some point, Plaintiffs learned that they had misspelled the names of several

23

defendants, including USI, Ernest J. Newborn II, and Marsh & McLennan Insurance Agency,

24

LLC. They thus sought to file a third amended complaint on September 2, 2024, sending a copy

25

of it to Defendant. Cajina Email, Nestor Decl., Ex. C, Dkt. No. 48-4 at 3-4. Before Defendant

26

responded, Plaintiffs filed a notice of errata as to the spelling of Marsh & McLennan’s name.

27

Notably, Plaintiffs did not correct the spelling of USI nor Newborn.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
CASE NO. 24-cv-00885-RS

28
2

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

Plaintiffs thereafter followed up with USI’s counsel, seeking stipulation to the Third

2

Amended Complaint. USI refused, contending that the request was untimely and given the

3

imminence of certain discovery and motion deadlines. Less than two weeks later, Plaintiffs

4

sought leave to file a slightly different version of the Third Amended Complaint than the one they

5

had shared with USI. In addition to changing the spelling of McLennan, the TAC also restates

6

several allegations, removing some details and adding new ones to better conform to discovery.

7

III. LEGAL STANDARD

8

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 governs efforts to modify a scheduling order after the

9

time for amending the pleadings has passed. Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294

10

(9th Cir. 2000). The Rule requires “good cause” and consent of court to amend a scheduling

11

order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “The pretrial schedule may be modified ‘if it cannot reasonably be

12

met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” Zivkovic v. Southern California

13

Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)).
If good cause to modify the schedule is present, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15
provides that leave to amend “shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a). The Ninth Circuit holds “[t]his policy is to be applied with extreme liberality.” Eminence
Capital, L.L.C. v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Owens v. Kaiser
Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001)). Courts generally consider four
factors: (1) bad faith on the part of the movant; (2) undue delay; (3) prejudice to the opposing
party; and (4) futility of the proposed amendment. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Of
these factors, prejudice to the opposing party carries the most weight. Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d
at 1052. In addition, courts consider whether the plaintiff has previously amended his complaint.
See Oracle Am., Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Enter. Co., No. 16-cv-01393-JST, 2017 WL 3149297, at
*2 (N.D. Cal. July 25, 2017). Generally, a court indulges all inferences in favor of granting the
motion; “strong evidence” to the contrary is required in order to deny leave to amend. Id.

27
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
CASE NO. 24-cv-00885-RS

28
3

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

IV. DISCUSSION

2

Plaintiffs’ motion to file the third amended complaint is granted. First, there is good cause

3

to correct the spelling of the party names and include a newly discovered defendant. Second,

4

although the motion is untimely, the “extreme liberality” with which courts in the Ninth Circuit

5

treat Rule 15 favors permitting the amendment. See Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1051.

6

So too does the four-factor Foman analysis (though only just). As to the first, and perhaps

7

closest, factor, Plaintiffs’ practice thus far may be wanting, but it is not obviously in bad faith. To

8

be sure, the fact that counsel is only just now correcting the various misspellings in the case

9

caption and pleadings is curious. On July 1, 2024, the court highlighted in the scheduling order

10

that USI’s name was misspelled, as was one of the individual defendant USI employees. See Dkt.

11

No. 24. In the Second Amended Complaint that followed, Plaintiffs nevertheless failed to correct

12

the spelling of either defendant’s name. See Dkt. No. 25. They also named as additional

13

defendants the Marsh McLennan Insurance Agency and one of its employees, misspelling

14

McLennan as “McLellan”. Id. Although Plaintiffs recognized their mistake the following month

15

and filed a notice of errata regarding the McLennan spelling error, they did not correct the spelling

16

of USI nor Newborn, whose names appear incorrectly in the Second Amended Complaint. That

17

said, Plaintiffs have identified another Defendant during the course of discovery, and amending a

18

complaint in such instances is not unusual. At the very least, it is short of the sort of bad faith that

19

would otherwise weigh against granting the motion.

20

As to the undue delay factor, Plaintiffs again meet the mark, barely. Their delinquency in

21

correcting the errors in the complaint notwithstanding, it appears that they sought to stipulate to

22

this amendment and have only filed a motion as a last resort—a choice which necessarily means

23

the motion comes somewhat late in the course of the case.1 With regard to the futility of the

24
25
26
27

1

USI contends that the motion should be denied because Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to meet and
confer with defense counsel, a requirement of Local Rule 16-2. Plaintiffs counsel, however, has
declared that he did confer with USI’s counsel about the amendment. See generally, Cajina Decl.,
Dkt. No. 46-1.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
CASE NO. 24-cv-00885-RS

28
4

1

proposed amendment element, the facts support granting the amendment; correcting the spelling is

2

hardly futile, and there is not yet evidence in the record sufficient to determine that any additional

3

claims against new defendants are so obviously futile as to doom their inclusion.

4

The final factor is prejudice to the non-movant, which USI claims is present due to the

5

increased discovery burdens that will flow from amendment. It is true that a “need to reopen

6

discovery and therefore delay the proceedings supports a district court’s finding of prejudice from

7

a delayed motion to amend the complaint.” Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Sols., Inc., 194

8

F.3d 980, 986 (9th Cir. 1999) (internal quotations omitted). Yet “[t]o overcome Rule 15(a)’s

9

liberal policy with respect to the amendment of pleadings[,] a showing of prejudice must be

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

substantial. Neither delay resulting from the proposed amendment nor the prospect of additional
discovery needed by the non-moving party in itself constitutes a sufficient showing of prejudice.”
Stearns v. Select Comfort Retail Corp., 763 F.Supp.2d 1128, 1158 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (citing
Genentech, Inc. v. Abbott Labs, 127 F.R.D. 529, 530-32 (N.D. Cal. 1989)). Here, discovery is still
ongoing, so although the amendment may require additional discovery, it does not require

14
reopening discovery and thus falls short of the sort of prejudice that would weigh against granting
15
the motion.
16
17
18
19
20

V. CONCLUSION
The motion to file a third amended complaint is granted. To the extent that party names
remain misspelled, Plaintiffs are directed either to (a) file a complaint that identifies USI as USI
Insurance Services, LLC and Newborn as Ernest J. Newborn II, or (b) within seven days of this
order, file a letter with the court to explain why they refuse to do so.

21
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
23
24
25
26
27

Dated: January 7, 2025
______________________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG
Chief United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
CASE NO. 24-cv-00885-RS

28
5

1
2
3
4
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
24
25
26
27
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
CASE NO. 24-cv-00885-RS

28
6