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)

Download PDF
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THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 For the Northern District of California NOT FOR CITATION 8 United States District Court 7 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 12 UNITED STATES, for the use of CAPITOL BUILDERS HARDWARE, INC.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?