Capitol Builders Hardware Inc. v. American Safety Casualty Insurance Company et al
Filing
18
ORDER granting 11 Use Plaintiff's Motion to File First Amended Complaint; vacating October 7, 2014 hearing; denying as moot 17 Use Plaintiff's Request to Attend October 7, 2014 Hearing by Telephonic Appearance. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 10/3/2014. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/3/2014)
1
*E-Filed: October 3, 2014*
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
For the Northern District of California
NOT FOR CITATION
8
United States District Court
7
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
12
UNITED STATES, for the use of CAPITOL
BUILDERS HARDWARE, INC. dba
CAPITOL DOOR SERVICE,
Use Plaintiff,
13
No. C14-02785 HRL
ORDER GRANTING USE
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FILE
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
v.
14
15
SABER CONSTRUCTION, INC. and
AMERICAN SAFETY CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY,
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT USE
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO ATTEND
OCTOBER 7, 2014 HEARING BY
TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE
Defendants.
____________________________________/
[Re: Docket Nos. 11, 17]
16
17
18
The United States, for the use of Capitol Builders Hardware, Inc. dba Capitol Door Service,
19
sues Saber Construction, Inc. and American Safety Casualty Insurance Company, asserting a claim
20
on the Miller Act Payment Bond as well as state law claims for breach of contract and quantum
21
meruit. Capitol Builders moves to file a first amended complaint. Dkt. No. 11. Defendants do not
22
oppose the motion. The motion is deemed suitable for determination without oral argument. The
23
October 7, 2014 hearing is vacated. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Capitol Builders’ request to attend the
24
October 7, 2014 hearing by telephonic appearance is denied as moot. Dkt. No. 17. Based on the
25
moving papers, the Court grants the motion to file a first amended complaint.
26
Saber Construction was awarded Contract No. GS-09P-13-WB-M-0024 by the United States
27
for improvements to the Robert F. Peckham Federal Building and United States Courthouse, 280
28
South First Street, San Jose, California. Saber Construction, as principal, and American Safety
1
Casualty Insurance Company, as surety, executed and delivered a payment bond guaranteeing the
2
payment to all persons supplying labor and materials in the prosecution of the work provided for in
3
the contract. Capitol Builders entered into a subcontract agreement with Saber Construction,
4
pursuant to which it furnished automatic door equipment and related labor and materials to Saber
5
Construction, which were used in the prosecution of the work provided for in the contract. Capitol
6
Builders alleges that it has not been paid the amount due for the value of the labor, services, and
7
materials provided.
The original complaint alleges that the contract value is $66,087 and that Capitol Builders
8
For the Northern District of California
has received partial payment of $6,608.70, leaving a balance due and owing of $59,478.30. Capitol
10
United States District Court
9
Builders’ counsel, William Baker, testifies that he inadvertently identified the amount of $6,608.70
11
as a partial payment made by Saber Construction, when in fact no payments have been made by
12
Saber Construction. Baker Decl. ¶ 2. According to Capitol Builders, $6,608.70 is the amount of
13
unpaid retention due on the project in addition to the previously invoiced amount of $59,478.30. Id.
14
It seeks to amend the complaint to request $66,087 in damages, plus interest, attorneys’ fees, and
15
costs.
16
In addition, Exhibit B to the original complaint is a copy of the subcontract agreement that
17
does not contain initials by Capitol Builders or Saber Construction acknowledging the new
18
subcontract amount. Attorney Baker testifies that he recently located a copy of the subcontract
19
agreement that includes Capitol Builders’ and Saber Construction’s initials acknowledging the
20
revised subcontract amount. Id. ¶ 3. Capitol Builders seeks to amend the complaint by replacing
21
Exhibit B with a copy of the subcontract agreement that contains all of the parties’ initials.
22
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that “a party may amend its pleading only
23
with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave
24
when justice so requires.” In order to determine whether leave to amend should be granted, the
25
Court considers “‘undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated
26
failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing
27
party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of amendment, etc.’” Eminence
28
2
1
Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir.2003) (quoting Foman v. Davis,
2
371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)).
3
Here, there is no evidence of undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of Capitol
4
Builders; repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed; undue prejudice
5
to Defendants, or futility of amendment. Accordingly, Capitol Builders’ motion is granted. Capitol
6
Builders shall file its attached proposed amended complaint forthwith, and in no case later than
7
seven days from the date this order is filed. Upon filing, pursuant to Rule 15(a)(3), Defendants will
8
have 14 days to move to dismiss the amended complaint or otherwise respond.
9
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 3, 2014
HOWARD R. LLOYD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
1
C14-02785 HRL Notice will be electronically mailed to:
2
Christian J. Gascou
3
William Louis Baker
4
Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not
registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.
cgascou@gascouhopkins.com
bill@wlbakerlaw.com
5
6
7
8
9
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?