QBEX Computadoras S.A., v. Intel Corporation

Filing 70

Order by Judge Lucy H. Koh Construing 53 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal as Motion for Leave to Amend; Granting Leave to Amend; Denying as Moot 52 Motion to Dismiss.(lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/25/2018)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

QBEX COMPUTADORAS S.A.,
Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No. 17-CV-03375-LHK
ORDER CONSTRUING NOTICE OF
VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL AS MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO AMEND; GRANTING
LEAVE TO AMEND; AND DENYING
MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT

v.

15

INTEL CORPORATION,

16

Defendant.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 52, 53

17
18

Plaintiff Qbex Computadoras S.A. (“Qbex”) filed its original complaint against Intel

19

Corporation (“Intel”) on June 12, 2017, in which Qbex alleged claims for common law fraud,

20

violation of the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act, common law negligent misrepresentation, breach

21

of the implied warranty of merchantability, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,

22

unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and breach of contract. ECF No. 1. On November 17, 2017,

23

the Court granted in part and denied in part Intel’s motion to dismiss. ECF No. 41. Relevant here,

24

the Court denied without prejudice Intel’s motion to dismiss Qbex’s claim for breach of the

25

implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing insofar as the claim was based on Intel’s alleged

26

obligation to provide non-defective products. Id. at 32. The Court denied Intel’s motion to

27
28

1
Case No. 17-CV-03375-LHK
ORDER CONSTRUING NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL AS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND;
GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND; AND DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT

1

dismiss Qbex’s claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing insofar as

2

the claim was based on Intel’s alleged obligation to provide continued technical support. Id.

3

On December 18, 2017, Qbex filed its First Amended Complaint. ECF No. 48. Relevant

4

here, the First Amended Complaint alleged a claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and

5

fair dealing based on the same two implied obligations: to provide non-defective products and to

6

provide continuing technical support. Id. ¶¶ 127-28.

7

On January 16, 2018, Intel filed a motion to dismiss in part the First Amended Complaint.

8

ECF No. 52. The only claim that Intel sought to dismiss was the claim for “breach of the implied

9

covenant of good faith and fair dealing, insofar as it asserts a claim for damages for the sale of
allegedly defective products.” Id. at 1. Intel also concurrently filed an answer responding to the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

other claims in the First Amended Complaint, as required by the Court’s November 17, 2017

12

order. See ECF No. 41 at 33; ECF No. 51.

13

Qbex’s opposition to the motion to dismiss was due on January 30, 2018. See Civ. Local

14

R. 7-3(a). Qbex did not file an opposition. Instead, on January 31, 2018, Qbex filed a notice of

15

voluntary dismissal. ECF No. 53. The notice of voluntary dismissal stated that Qbex “hereby

16

dismisses its third claim for relief for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair

17

dealing, alleged in the Amended Complaint [D.E. 48], without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule

18

of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i).” Id. Intel has not filed anything in response to the notice of

19

voluntary dismissal, although the Court notes that the parties’ joint case management statement,

20

which the parties filed on March 21, 2018, omits any reference to the breach of the implied

21

covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim. See ECF No. 59. Presumably, this reflects the

22

parties’ understanding that the breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim

23

is no longer in the case.

24

However, the Ninth Circuit has held that “a plaintiff may not use Rule 41(a)(1)(i) to

25

dismiss, unilaterally, a single claim from a multi-claim complaint.” Hells Canyon Preservation

26

Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Ethridge v. Harbor

27
28

2
Case No. 17-CV-03375-LHK
ORDER CONSTRUING NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL AS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND;
GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND; AND DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT

1

House Restaurant, 861 F.2d 1389, 1392 (9th Cir. 1988)). “Instead, withdrawals of individual

2

claims against a given defendant are governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, which addresses amendments

3

to pleadings.” Id. Thus, under Hells Canyon, the Court construes Qbex’s notice of voluntary

4

dismissal as a motion to amend its complaint under Rule 15(a). See id. at 689 (“[W]hat the district

5

court should have done, and what we believe it did do, was treat HCPC’s oral withdrawal of its

6

Wilderness Act claim as a motion to amend its complaint under Rule 15(a).”).

7

Rule 15(a)(2) is the applicable provision here, because Qbex has already amended its
complaint once. Rule 15(a)(2) provides that “a party may amend its pleading only with the

9

opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when

10

justice so requires.” As evidenced by the fact that Intel already moved to dismiss the claim for

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, ECF No. 52, the Court finds that it

12

is in the interest of justice to allow Qbex to amend its complaint to remove the claim for breach of

13

the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Accordingly, within 7 days from the issuance

14

of this order, Qbex shall file a second amended complaint that removes the claim for breach of the

15

implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Within 7 days of the filing of the second

16

amended complaint, Intel shall file an answer to the second amended complaint. Apart from

17

removing the claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, neither party

18

may make any other changes to their pleadings without the Court’s permission. Finally, the Court

19

DENIES as moot Intel’s motion to dismiss in part the First Amended Complaint.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22
23
24

Dated: April 25, 2018
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28

3
Case No. 17-CV-03375-LHK
ORDER CONSTRUING NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL AS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND;
GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND; AND DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT