Fay Avenue Properties, LLC. et al v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America et al
Filing
122
ORDER Denying Defendant's Ex Parte Motion For Leave To File Counterclaim Against Plaintiff La Jolla Spa, MD, Inc And Continuance Of Case Management Order Dates (Re Doc. 116 ). Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 7/24/2014. (mdc)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
FAY AVENUE PROPERTIES, LLC.,
LA JOLLA SPA MD, INC.,
12
13
Plaintiffs,
vs.
14
15
16
17
TRAVELERS PROPERTY
CASUALTY COMPANY OF
AMERICA; AND DOES 1 through
100, inclusive,
CASE NO. 3:11-cv-02389-GPC-WVG
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
EX PARTE MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE A COUNTERCLAIM
AGAINST PLAINTIFF LA JOLLA
SPA, MD, INC AND
CONTINUANCE OF CASE
MANAGEMENT ORDER DATES
[Dkt. No. 116.]
Defendants.
18
19
20
Before the Court is Defendant’s ex parte motion for leave to file a counterclaim
21
against Plaintiff La Jolla Spa MD, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “LJS”) and continuance of case
22
management order dates. (Dkt. No. 116.) Plaintiff filed an opposition. (Dkt. No. 118.)
23
On July 23, 2014, Defendant filed a request to file a reply. (Dkt. No. 119.) On the
24
same day, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the request to file a reply. (Dkt. No. 120.)
25
After a review of the request and opposition, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s request
26
to file a reply.
27
28
Based on the reasoning below, the Court DENIES Defendant’s ex parte motion
for leave to file a counterclaim and continuance of case management order dates.
-1-
3:11-cv-02389-GPC-WVG
1
Factual Background
2
Plaintiff La Jolla Spa operated a high-end medical spa and boutique in
3
downtown La Jolla and Plaintiff Fay Avenue Properties, LLC (“Fay Ave Property”)
4
owned the two story building where La Jolla Spa was located. Both Plaintiffs were
5
named insured under an insurance policy issued by Travelers Property Casualty
6
Company of America (“Travelers”). Dianne York is the President of La Jolla Spa and
7
sole member of Fay Avenue Properties.
8
Plaintiff occupied the first floor of 7630 Fay Avenue, La Jolla, California where
9
it operated a spa and retail shop. The second floor of the Fay Ave Property was
10
partially occupied by the medical practice of York’s former husband, Dr. Mitchell
11
Goldman (“Goldman”). On or about September 18, 2009, Goldman vacated the Fay
12
Ave Property, and moved his medical practice and equipment to another location, in
13
accordance with the terms of York’s and Goldman’s divorce judgment. Plaintiff
14
contends that Goldman, and/or persons acting on his behalf, stole medical and office
15
equipment from the Fay Ave Property.
16
On or about January 26, 2010, Plaintiff filed an insurance claim with Defendant
17
where she alleged that her husband stole property from the insured location. On March
18
29, 2010, Plaintiffs submitted an insurance claim spreadsheet, detailing roughly 230
19
line items totaling $2.8 million in damages as a result of the claimed loss. (Dkt. No.
20
116-1, Agness Decl., Ex. 2.) At an August 25, 2010 Examination Under Oath
21
(“EUO”), Ms. York testified that the tangible items listed in the March 29, 2010 claim
22
inventory was prepared by Karen Wise, the CFO. (Id., Agness Decl., Ex. 3, Aug. 25,
23
2010 EUO at 12:8-22; 13:4-14:4.) York and Wise “walked through the entire building
24
room by room, and we itemized everything that was in that building” and the list is
25
what we were asked to provide by Defendant. (Id. at 13:7-14:4.)
26
On April 29, 2011, Plaintiff submitted a revised claim inventory, detailing over
27
1,000 line items. (Id., Agness Decl., Ex. 4.) When asked on May 4, 2011 by email if
28
the entire inventory being claimed was wrongfully damaged or stolen by Dr. Goldman,
-2-
3:11-cv-02389-GPC-WVG
1
York responded “Yes.” (Id., Agness Decl., Ex. 5.)
Thereafter, on June 2, 2011, Plaintiffs submitted another revised inventory
2
3
27 including over 1,100 line items, totaling over $13 million in damages. (Id., Agness
4
Decl., Ex. 6.) During York’s fourth EUO session on July 12, 2011, York stated that
5
the inventory list contained all physical property for which she was making a claim and
6
all these items were owned by Plaintiffs as of September 18, 2009. (Id., Agness Decl.,
7
Ex. 7, June 2, 2011 EOU at 373:4-373:3.) On December 20, 2011, Defendant denied
8
Plaintiff’s claim. (Id., Agness Decl., Ex. 8.)
9
Defendant argues that York directly contradicted pre-litigation testimony given
10
under oath as well as other material representations made during the investigation of
11
the insurance claim. At the recent deposition of York, in July 2014, she testified that
12
the items identified in the June 2, 2011 inventory reflected an inventory of all items in
13
the entire building on September 18, 2009. (Dkt. No. 116-1, Agness Decl., Ex. 10,
14
York Depo., 7/9/14 at 272:8-273:1.) She stated that Dr. Goldman did not take all items
15
in the June 2, 2011 inventory and that some of the items were rightfully taken. (Id.,
16
Ex. 10, York Depo. 7/9/14 at 274:24-275:15; 7/10/14 at 57:11-17.) Moreover, during
17
the deposition, York also testified that the Vitaphenol and Obagi products that had
18
been claimed as stolen during the claim process were not stolen by Goldman. (Id., Ex.
19
10, York Depo., 7/10/14 at 56:14-25; 75:1-7.)
20
affirmative statements that contradict pre-litigation testimony now support a cause of
21
action for fraud against LJS.
22
A.
Defendant contends that these
Legal Standard
23
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 and 16 govern the amendment of pleadings.
24
The Ninth Circuit has explained that once a pretrial schedule order has been filed
25
which sets a deadline for amending pleadings, a party must first show “good cause” for
26
amendment under Rule 16(b)1, and then if good cause is shown, the party must
27
28
Rule 16(b) provides, “[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and
with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).
1
-3-
3:11-cv-02389-GPC-WVG
1
demonstrate that amendment would be proper under Rule 15(a). Johnson v. Mammoth
2
Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1991); Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186
3
F.R.D. 605, 607 (E.D. Cal. 1999); Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294
4
(9th Cir. 2000). “If [the Court] considered only Rule 15(a) without regard to Rule
5
16(b), [it] would render scheduling orders meaningless and effectively would read Rule
6
16(b) and its good cause requirement out of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
7
Jackson, 186 F.R.D. at 607 (quoting Sosa v. Airprint Sys., Inc., 133 F.3d 1417, 1419
8
(11th Cir. 1998)).
9
Rule 16(b)’s good cause standard considers the diligence of the party seeking the
10
amendment. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. If a party acted diligently but still cannot
11
reasonably meet the scheduling deadlines, the court may modify the scheduling order.
12
Id. Carelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no reason for
13
a grant of relief. Id. One district court noted that the Court may look at the following
14
factors: “(1) that [the movant] was diligent in assisting the Court in creating a workable
15
Rule 16[O]rder; (2) that [the movant’s] noncompliance with a Rule 16 deadline
16
occurred or will occur, notwithstanding [the movant’s] diligent efforts to comply,
17
because of the development of matters which could not have been reasonably foreseen
18
or anticipated at the time of the Rule 16 scheduling conference; and (3) that [the
19
movant] was diligent in seeking amendment of the Rule 16[O]rder, once it became
20
apparent that [the movant] could not comply with the [O]rder.” Jackson, 186 F.R.D.
21
at 608.
22
On August 2, 2013, a case management scheduling order pursuant to Rule 16
23
was filed. (Dkt. No. 85.) The deadline to file any motion to amend pleadings passed
24
on September 6, 2013. (Id.) The fact discovery deadline recently passed on July 20,
25
2014 with expert discovery closing on September 25, 2014. (Id.) A final pretrial
26
conference is currently set for November 15, 2014. (Id.)
27
Since the deadline set in the original scheduling order to amend the pleadings
28
has passed, the Court must first determine whether Defendant has shown “good cause”
-4-
3:11-cv-02389-GPC-WVG
1
to modify the scheduling order. See Johnson, 975 F.2d at 608-09.
2
The Court concludes that Defendant has not demonstrated good cause to modify
3
the scheduling order to grant it leave to file a counterclaim. While the parties raise
4
numerous portions of the record to support their positions, and whether Travelers knew
5
whether the inventory lists were all items claimed to have been taken by Goldman was
6
accurate or not, the Court concludes the denial letter provides a comprehensive analysis
7
as to what Travelers knew in December 2011.
8
The denial letter dated December 20, 2011 demonstrates that Travelers knew that
9
Plaintiff had misrepresented or misstated or misunderstood the items on the inventory
10
lists. In a detailed 22 page single-spaced letter, Defendant denied Plaintiff’s claim for
11
numerous reasons, including misrepresentations by York during the course of the
12
Travelers’ investigation. (Dkt. No. 116-1, Agness Decl., Ex. 8.) In fact, a section
13
entitled “Misrepresentations Disclosed by Travelers’ Investigation” provides examples
14
of misrepresentations and include: “The Claim for All Equipment on the Second
15
Floor.” (Id. at 123-24.) Travelers noted that the stipulated marital dissolution awarded
16
Goldman, all of the equipment on the second floor except for equipment in the surgical
17
suite which Plaintiff acknowledged in a September 23, 2009 declaration in the divorce
18
proceedings; however, the claim inventory lists equipment from nearly every room on
19
the second floor “even though most of those items were clearly not awarded to you.”
20
(Id. at 123.) “You submitted those claims despite your admission under penalty of
21
perjury in a different proceeding that Dr. Goldman was allowed to take all of the non-
22
surgical suite equipment on the second floor.” (Id.) In sum, Travelers stated “your
23
clear intent, expressed under penalty of perjury is for Traverlers to pay for items which
24
you conceded in a different proceedings (and which the divorce judgement confirms)
25
were awarded to Dr. Goldman. (Id. at 124.)
26
In addition, as to “The Vitaphenol Claim”, Defendant noted that York claimed
27
that Vitaphenol was stolen by Dr. Goldman and sought $1.5 million as listed in the
28
inventory list. (Id.) However, Defendant later learned and York admitted in her
-5-
3:11-cv-02389-GPC-WVG
1
examination that Vitaphenol was sold by the court appointed receiver on behalf of her
2
company. (Id.) Moreover, in her July 22, 2011 declaration submitted to the federal
3
bankruptcy court, she stated that Vitaphenol was sold in October 2008 for $1.5 million,
4
which is the amount sought from Travelers. (Id.) As to “The Obagi Claim” , the
5
inventory listed the product value at $96,000; however, in the January 8, 2010
6
declaration in the divorce proceedings, York stated that Dr. Goldman was authorized
7
to remove the Obagi products. (Id. at 125.)
8
This demonstrates that as of December 20, 2011, Travelers had notice that the
9
inventory lists did not constitute the total items taken by Goldman and that, according
10
to its investigation, Plaintiff had misrepresented that items contained in the inventory
11
claim lists were taken by Goldman. Since Travelers was on notice since the beginning
12
of the case about the potential misrepresentation or fraud by Plaintiff, it should have
13
diligently sought her deposition and any other discovery to determine whether a
14
counterclaim should be alleged.2 As Plaintiff points out, while Travelers listed York
15
as the first witness in its August 2012 initial disclosures, it did not notice her deposition
16
until May 2014 and due to scheduling, her deposition did not take place until July 9
17
and 10, 2014, two weeks prior to the fact discovery deadline. Moreover, in its answer
18
filed on March 26, 2012, Defendant asserts an affirmative defense of “Policy Terms,
19
Conditions and Exclusion” concerning “Concealment, Misrepresentation or Fraud”
20
where the policy provisions it references are the same as alleged in the proposed
21
counterclaim. (Dkt. Nos. 32; 116 at 15.) These facts reveal that Travelers has not been
22
proceeding with diligence in this case.
23
Therefore, the Court concludes that Travelers has not demonstrated diligence and
24
DENIES Defendant’s motion to modify the scheduling order. Since the Court declines
25
to exercise its discretion to modify its Rule 16 Scheduling Order, an analysis under
26
27
28
2
The Court also questions why a counterclaim was not filed prior to the scheduling order
amendment deadline based on the fact that Travelers, at that time, was aware that Plaintiff allegedly
made numerous misrepresentations during the investigation. Carelessness provides no reason for a
grant of relief under Rule 16. See Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609.
-6-
3:11-cv-02389-GPC-WVG
1
Rule 15(a) is not necessary. See Sosa, 133 F.3d at 1419 (holding that the Court need
2
not evaluate Rule 15(a) unless the movant first meets the “good cause” requirement of
3
Rule 16); see also MMMT Holdings Corp. v NSGI Holdings, Inc., No. C12-1570 RSL,
4
2014 WL 2573290, at *4 (W.D. Wash June 9, 2014) (because plaintiff cannot satisfy
5
Rule 16(b), it is not necessary to evaluate the plaintiff’s motion to amend under Rule
6
15).
Conclusion
7
8
9
10
Based on the above, the Court DENIES Defendant’s ex parte motion for leave
to file a counterclaim and continuing dates in the scheduling order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
12
DATED: July 24, 2014
13
14
HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL
United States District Judge
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-7-
3:11-cv-02389-GPC-WVG
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?