Clear-View Technologies, Inc., v. Rasnick et al

Filing 75

ORDER by Judge Beth Labson Freeman granting 52 Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/3/2014)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

CLEAR-VIEW TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Case No. 13-cv-02744-BLF

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

JOHN H. RASNICK, et al.,
Defendants.

11

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN
AMENDED ANSWER, STATEMENT OF
ADDITIONAL DEFENSES, AND
COUNTERCLAIMS

United States District Court
Northern District of California

[ECF 52]
12
13

Plaintiff brings suit against Defendants, alleging in its First Amended Complaint various

14

claims for tortious interference, unfair competition, and breach of contract, arising from a dispute

15

over an agreement to develop and sell a product called “The BarMaster,” described as an

16

inventory-control system for purveyors of beverages in the hospitality industry.

17

Defendants seek leave of Court to file an Amended Answer, Statements of Additional

18

Defenses, and Counterclaims (ECF 52), which Plaintiff opposes. (ECF 57) The Court designated

19

this matter as suitable for determination without oral argument, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-

20

1(b). After reviewing the papers and governing law, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion.

21

I.

22

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed its initial Complaint in this action on June 14, 2013. (ECF 1) Following

23

Defendants’ initial Answer on September 20, 2013 (ECF 20), the parties stipulated to grant

24

Plaintiff leave to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), which Plaintiff filed on March 19,

25

2014. (ECF 37) Defendants answered this FAC on April 7, 2014. (ECF 39)

26

This case was transferred to the undersigned judge on April 17, 2014. On May 14, 2014, at

27

a Case Management Conference, the Court granted Defendants until May 28, 2014 to file a

28

Motion to Amend their Answer. (ECF 50) Defendants timely filed their Motion on that date. (ECF

1

52) The proposed Amended Answer seeks to add counterclaims arising from a Confidential

2

Agreement which is the subject of the fifth cause of action in the FAC.1 Plaintiff filed an

3

Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Leave on June 14, 2014. (ECF 58)

4

II.

DISCUSSION

5

1.

Rule 16 Governs This Motion

6

The parties disagree as to whether Rule 15 or Rule 16 governs this Motion for Leave to

7

Amend. Defendants argue that Rule 15 should govern the Motion. Rule 15(a) provides that leave

8

to amend should be “freely given when justice so requires.” Plaintiff argues that Rule 16 should be

9

applied here, demanding a heightened “good cause” requirement for any amendment. In support of
this argument, Plaintiff cites Judge Davila’s prior Case Management Order (ECF 26), issued on

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

January 8, 2014, which permitted amendment only within sixty days of that Order, and stated that

12

“[a]mendments sought after the deadline must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16.”

13

(Id. at 1) The Court agrees with Plaintiff, and finds that Rule 16 governs this Motion, as this Court

14

has not altered Judge Davila’s Case Management Order. See Zamora v. City of San Francisco,

15

2013 WL 4529553, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2013) (finding that Rule 16’s more stringent rules

16

govern attempts to amend “after the deadline set forth in a court’s scheduling order”); see also

17

Pierce v. Sprouts Café, Inc., 2010 WL 3069312, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2010) (“Once the Court

18

has entered a pretrial scheduling order, the standards of Rule 16 rather than Rule 15 govern

19

amendment of the pleadings.”).

20

As such, the Court will analyze Defendants’ Motion under Rule 16’s requirements.

21

2.

Under Rule 16, the Motion Should Be Granted, Because Defendants Have
Shown Good Cause for Amendment

22
23

Unlike Rule 15(a)’s liberal policy toward amendment, “which focuses on the bad faith of

24

the party seeking to interpose an amendment and the prejudice to the opposing party,” Johnson v.

25

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992), Rule 16’s “good cause” standard

26
27
28

1

All references to the identity of this Agreement in the FAC and proposed Amended Answer have
been filed under seal, thus, this Agreement will be identified in this Order as the “Confidential
Agreement.” (See ECF 61, 67)
2

1

“primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking amendment.” Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P.

2

advisory committee’s notes (1983 amendments). “If the moving party was not diligent, the inquiry

3

should end.” Kuschner v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., 256 F.R.D. 684, 687 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (citing

4

Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002)). A party can show good cause

5

by showing:

6

(1) that it was diligent in assisting the court in creating a workable
Rule 16 order; (2) that its noncompliance with a [R]ule 16 deadline
occurred or will not occur, notwithstanding its diligent efforts to
comply, because of the development of matters which could not
have been reasonably foreseen or anticipated at the time of the Rule
16 scheduling conference; and (3) that it was diligent in seeking
amendment of the Rule 16 order, once it became apparent that it
could not comply with the order.

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999).
Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument that Defendants have not been diligent in seeking

13

amendment, the record reveals that Defendants have met their burden to show good cause.

14

Plaintiff states that Defendants “have for years known the facts underpinning their proffered

15

amendments and yet elected not to assert claims until now” (Opp. to Mot. for Leave at 6), thus,

16

Plaintiff argues, Defendants have not shown the necessary diligence. The Court disagrees.

17

Diligence should be evaluated in light of the time when this particular Confidential Agreement

18

became the subject of this lawsuit and the promptness, thereafter, of Defendants’ proposed

19

amendment.

20

The record reveals that Plaintiff’s initial Complaint did not allege any claims arising out of

21

the Confidential Agreement. On March 19, 2014, Plaintiff filed its FAC, charging breach of the

22

Confidential Agreement in its newly asserted fifth cause of action. (ECF 37) Defendants answered

23

the FAC on April 7, 2014 (ECF 39), and ten days later the case was reassigned to the undersigned.

24

At the Court’s first Case Management Conference, held on May 14, 2014, the Court granted

25

Defendants’ request for time to file a motion for leave to amend the answer and assert new

26

counterclaims. (ECF 50) Two weeks later, on May 28, 2014, Defendants timely filed the instant

27

Motion. It is notable that Plaintiff obtained leave to file its FAC by stipulation of Defendants (see

28

ECF 33), but Plaintiff has not chosen to extend to Defendants the same consideration in granting
3

1
2

leave to amend the Answer.
On this set of facts, it appears clear to the Court that Defendants acted with diligence in

3

seeking leave to amend their Answer. Regardless of whether they knew of the facts giving rise to

4

their allegations that Plaintiff breached the Confidential Agreement at a prior time, no lack of

5

diligence can be attributed to Defendants’ decision to forebear such claims absent assertion of

6

breach of that Agreement by Plaintiff. Once Plaintiff charged Defendants with breach of the

7

Confidential Agreement, it was a mere matter of weeks until Defendants sought leave of Court to

8

file their counterclaims. Based on the foregoing, the Court determines that Defendants have been

9

reasonably diligent in seeking amendment in compliance with Rule 16.

10

The Court further finds that granting Defendants the opportunity to amend will not

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

prejudice Plaintiff. Discovery in this matter is nascent, and the parties’ trial date is nearly a year

12

away. (ECF 50; see also Mot. for Leave at 4-5) Courts have held that a need to reopen or delay

13

discovery “supports a district court’s finding of prejudice from a delayed motion to amend,”

14

Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 194 F.3d 980, 986 (9th Cir. 1999), but the

15

Court sees no such need in this case. Further, that Plaintiff has based its litigation strategy on a

16

prior Answer (see Opp. to Mot. for Leave at 9-10), does not in and of itself show prejudice toward

17

Plaintiff. See Burton v. United States, 199 F.R.D. 194, 199 (S.D. W.Va. 2001) (granting leave to

18

amend where discovery had not yet closed, and finding no prejudice, despite the fact that

19

“plaintiffs’ counsel ha[d] spent considerable hours preparing his case based on the original

20

answer”). Defendants filed their Answer to the FAC on April 7, 2014, and sought leave to amend

21

on May 28, 2014. (ECF 52) The seven weeks in which Plaintiff may have based its strategic

22

decisions on Defendants’ Answer simply does not rise to the level necessary to bar Defendants

23

from amending, for the first time, to assert counterclaims based on the Confidential Agreement in

24

the FAC’s fifth cause of action.

25

Plaintiff finally alleges that Defendants’ proposed amendment is “subject to immediate

26

dismissal and therefore futile.” (Opp. to Mot. for Leave at 3) Plaintiff contends that it “cannot

27

reasonably be disputed” that Defendants breached the Confidential Agreement in question, and as

28

such, “in light of their anticipatory breach, Defendants are precluded from seeking relief for any
4

1

purposed breach [by Plaintiff.]” (Id.)
The Court is unwilling to find that Defendants’ counterclaims are “utterly meritless” at this

2
3

stage. See Collaboration Properties, Inc. v. Tandberg ASA, 2006 WL 2398762, at *3 (rejecting

4

amendment to an answer when the claims were “utterly meritless”). Plaintiff’s Opposition cites no

5

case law and only a single statute for their proposition that the counterclaims lack merit. (See Opp.

6

to Mot. for Leave at 8-9) This minimal analysis, coupled with a blanket assertion that there can be

7

no dispute as to Defendants’ breach, is insufficient to prove futility. The proposed counterclaims

8

concern breach of the same Confidential Agreement as does the Plaintiff’s newly-asserted fifth

9

cause of action. Determining whether or not such counterclaims are meritless is more
appropriately considered through a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

III.

12

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendants have shown the necessary “good

13

cause” required by Rule 16’s more stringent standards for amendment. As such, the Court

14

GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer, Statements of Additional

15

Defenses, and Counterclaims. Defendants shall file the Amended Answer on or before September

16

15, 2014.

17
18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 3, 2014
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5