Gatan, Inc. v. Nion Company

Filing 39

ORDER by Judge Hamilton denying 37 Motion (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/10/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

GATAN, INC.,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 15-cv-1862-PJH

Plaintiff,

8
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

NION COMPANY,
Defendant.

12
13
14

Before the court is plaintiff’s motion for administrative relief seeking clarification, or

15

in the alternative, for leave. Plaintiff was given leave to amend its complaint, with the

16

condition that “no new claims may be added without leave of court or the consent of all

17

parties.” See Dkt. 33. Plaintiff now seeks to divide its prior breach of contract claim into

18

two separate claims, though it maintains that “this is not a ‘new claim’ but rather revising

19

its existing claims in a manner that improves clarity.”

20

Plaintiff informs the court that it sought a stipulation from defendant, but while

21

defendant “did not have a conceptual problem with agreeing to the act of dividing claims,”

22

it could not stipulate to the proposed amended complaint without first seeing it. However,

23

because the second amended complaint was still “being revised,” plaintiff was “unable to

24

share a finalized second amended complaint with [defendant] prior to the filing deadline.”

25

The issue raised by defendant is the same issue that prevents the court from

26

granting plaintiff’s administrative motion. Without reviewing the proposed amended

27

complaint, the court cannot determine whether it adds new claims, and thus cannot

28

determine whether it complies with the scope of plaintiff’s leave to amend. Thus,

1
2

pla
aintiff’s adm
ministrative motion is DENIED.
D
Howev becaus it appear likely that this issue can be res
ver,
se
rs
t
solved witho further
out

3

urt
ment, the co hereby directs pla
ourt
y
aintiff to pro
ovide a copy of its prop
posed
cou involvem

4

ecember 1 2015. P
sec
cond amen
nded compla to defe
aint
endant no la than De
ater
16,
Plaintiff

5

sha then hav until Dec
all
ve
cember 23, 2015 to eiither submit a stipulation reflectin
,
ng

6

def
fendant’s consent to the filing of the second amended complaint, or to subm an
c
d
mit

7

administrative motion for leave with the propos amend complaint attached for the
e
r
h
sed
ded
d

8

urt’s review
w.
cou

9

IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.

10

Da
ated: December 10, 20
015

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

__
__________
__________
__________
_______
PH
HYLLIS J. H
HAMILTON
Un
nited States District Ju
s
udge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2