The Marine Group, LLC et al v. Marine Travelift, Inc. et al

Filing 73

ORDER re 59 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. Accordingly, under the liberal pleading standards of Rule 15, the Court exercises its discretion to Grant Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to add as defendants ExacTech, Just in Time, and Southern Weaving. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 9/19/11. (ecs)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARINE GROUP, LLC, et al.,

Case No. 10cv846-BTM (CAB)
Plaintiffs,

12

ORDER RE MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO AMEND COMPLAINT

v.
13

MARINE TRAVELIFT, INC., et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

Plaintiffs move, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, for leave to file a first amended

16

complaint to add as defendants ExacTech, Inc., Just In Time Corp., and Southern Weaving

17

Company. Defendant All-Lift Systems, Inc. does not oppose this motion. Defendant Marine

18

Travelift opposes this motion insofar as Plaintiffs seek to add ExacTech.

19

Under Rule 15(a), courts are to apply the policy of free amendment of pleadings with

20

extreme liberality. DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987).

21

When determining whether to grant leave to amend, a court should consider the following

22

factors: (1) undue delay; (2) bad faith; (3) futility of amendment; and (4) prejudice to the

23

opposing party. See Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir.

24

2003).

25

Plaintiffs’ motion was filed before the first amended case management order’s

26

deadline to file motions to amend the pleadings and therefore is timely. Plaintiffs state that

27

through discovery, they identified ExacTech, Just in Time, and Southern Weaving as

28

additional companies who manufactured, designed, supplied, and distributed failed
1

10cv846-BTM (CAB)

1

components of the boat hoist and boat handling equipment at issue in this lawsuit. The Court

2

finds no bad faith in Plaintiffs’ request to add these companies as defendants.

3

Marine Travelift opposes amendment as futile because it contends that the structural

4

components fabricated by ExacTech did not “in any way contribute[] to the incident.” (Opp.

5

at 2.) Where, as here, discovery is ongoing, a proposed amendment is futile “only if no set

6

of facts can be proved under the amendment to the pleadings that would constitute a valid

7

and sufficient claim or defense.” Miller v. Rykoff-Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir.

8

1988). Marine Travelift’s argument that it expects ExacTech to be successful in a motion to

9

dismiss does not meet this standard.

10

Finally, Marine Travelift argues that it will be prejudiced because some of its

11

executives, who also serve as executives of ExacTech, will be subjected to additional

12

depositions and because it will have to respond to additional document requests. This

13

argument lacks merit. Prejudice related to the opposing party’s burden of undertaking

14

discovery is not sufficient to warrant denial of a motion to amend a pleading. See United

15

States on behalf of Maritime Admin. v. Continental Illinois Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 889 F.2d

16

1248, 1255 (2d Cir. 1989).

17

Accordingly, under the liberal pleading standards of Rule 15, the Court exercises its

18

discretion to GRANT Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to add as defendants

19

ExacTech, Just in Time, and Southern Weaving. The parties shall contact the chambers of

20

the magistrate judge assigned to this case to obtain an amended case management order.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

Dated: September 19, 2011

24

HONORABLE BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
2

10cv846-BTM (CAB)