Ruschke v. Medtronic, Inc. et al

Filing 24

Order by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granting 23 Motion for Leave to File and VACATING hearing.(pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/31/2018)

Case 4:18-cv-02515-PJH Document 24 Filed 10/31/18 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DAVID RUSCHKE,

9

v.

10

MEDTRONIC, PLC, et al.,

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 18-cv-02515-PJH

Plaintiff,

8

Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE
COUNTERCLAIM AND VACATING
HEARING
Re: Dkt. No. 23

12
13
14

Before the court is defendant Medtronic, PLC’s (“Medtronic”) motion for leave to

15

file a counterclaim. The matter is unopposed and suitable for decision without oral

16

argument. Accordingly, the hearing set for November 7, 2018 is VACATED. Having read

17

Medtronic’s papers and carefully considered the arguments and relevant legal authority,

18

and good cause appearing, the court hereby GRANTS the motion.

19

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 provides that “a party may amend its pleading

20

only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court should

21

freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 15(a)(2); see also, e.g.,

22

Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990) (leave to

23

amend granted with “extreme liberality”).

24

“Five factors are taken into account to assess the propriety of a motion for leave to

25

amend: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment,

26

and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.” Johnson v. Buckley,

27

356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004); accord Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).

28

“[T]he consideration of prejudice to the opposing party . . . carries the greatest

Case 4:18-cv-02515-PJH Document 24 Filed 10/31/18 Page 2 of 3

1

weight. Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman factors,

2

there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.”

3

Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations

4

omitted).
Here, the court is not aware of any facts showing that Medtronic has acted in bad

5
6

faith or unduly delayed bringing this motion. According to the information before the

7

court, Medtronic has been attempting to negotiate its proposed counterclaim with plaintiff

8

since July 2018. See Dkt. 23-2 (“Mason Decl.”) ¶¶ 2–3. In August 2018, Medtronic

9

informed plaintiff of its intent to bring a counterclaim in this action, and plaintiff advised

10

that he anticipated such a motion could be resolved by stipulation. Id. ¶¶ 4–5.
The same facts demonstrate that plaintiff will not suffer undue prejudice from

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

amendment. First, he has not opposed the motion and therefore has not given the court

13

any basis to believe that he would suffer undue prejudice. Moreover, he has been aware

14

of Medtronic’s general claims since at least July 30, 2018, when Medtronic sent plaintiff

15

loan documentation and requested immediate payment of a loan. Mason Decl. ¶¶ 2–3 &

16

Ex. 1. Finally, trial is not scheduled to begin for nearly a year, on September 23, 2019.
At this point, Medtronic’s claims do not appear to be futile under Rule 15, nor does

17
18

plaintiff argue otherwise.

19

Finally, Medtronic has not previously amended its pleadings.

20

The court finds that permitting Medtronic to amend its pleadings to add its

21

proposed counterclaim would enhance efficiency for the parties and the court by saving

22

each from litigating parallel actions. As such, the interests of justice support granting

23

Medtronic’s motion for leave to amend.

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
2

Case 4:18-cv-02515-PJH Document 24 Filed 10/31/18 Page 3 of 3

CONCLUSION

1
2

For the foregoing reasons, Medtronic’s motion for leave to amend its pleadings to

3

add a counterclaim is GRANTED. Medtronic shall file its amended pleadings within 14

4

days from the date of this order.

5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 31, 2018
__________________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

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
28
3