LF Centennial Limited v. Z-Line Designs, Inc. et al

Filing 151

ORDER granting 124 Motion to modify Scheduling Order and for leave to file First Amended and Supplemental Complaint; denying 141 Defendant's Motion to Strike. The court vacates the upcoming Pretrial Conference and trial dates.Signed by Judge Jeffrey T. Miller on 7/23/2018. (jpp)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

LF CENTENNIAL LIMITED, a British
Virgin Islands corporation,

15
16
17

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO MODIFY
SCHEDULING ORDER AND FOR
LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED
AND SUPPLEMENTAL
COMPLAINT; DENYING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
STRIKE

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No.: 16cv929 JM (NLS)

v.
Z-LINE DESIGNS, INC., a Nevada
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive,
Defendant.

18
19

On June 13, 2018, Plaintiff LF Centennial Limited (“LFCL”) moved the court to

20

modify the scheduling order and for leave to file a first amended complaint. (Doc. No.

21

124.) Defendant Z-Line Designs, Inc. (“Z-Line”) opposes, (Doc. No. 140), and moves to

22

strike an exhibit supporting LFCL’s motion, (Doc. No. 141). Pursuant to Local Rule

23

7.1(d)(1), the court finds the matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument. For

24

the reasons set forth below, the court grants LFCL’s motion and denies Z-Line’s motion to

25

strike as moot, without prejudice.

26

BACKGROUND

27

On April 18, 2016, LFCL initiated this action against Z-Line, alleging breach of a

28

licensing agreement, breach of good faith and fair dealing, and seeking an accounting from
1
16cv929 JM (NLS)

1

Z-Line. (Doc. No. 1.) In the scheduling order, Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes set

2

October 28, 2016, as the deadline by which to amend the pleadings. (Doc. No. 32.)

3

On August 10, 2017, the court granted LFCL’s motion for partial summary

4

adjudication on the issue of whether LFCL has the contractual right to conduct a royalty

5

audit. (Doc. No. 99.) The court directed the parties to raise any issue relating to the scope,

6

conditions, or terms of the royalty audit before Magistrate Judge Stormes. (Id.) Fifteen

7

days later, Magistrate Judge Stormes ordered the parties to proceed with the royalty audit,

8

in accordance with the licensing agreement, and to complete that audit by December 29,

9

2017. (Doc. No. 100.)

10

The parties jointly engaged Paul Crystal of Crystal Advisory Services (“CAS”) to

11

audit Z-Line’s sales of the licensed products and the royalties Z-Line had paid, to cover the

12

third quarter of 2013 through the third quarter of 2017. The audit was not completed on

13

time. On March 19, 2018, the court granted the parties’ joint motion to continue trial

14

because CAS did not anticipate completing the audit report until April. (Doc. No. 116.)

15

CAS issued the audit report on May 14, 2018. (Doc. No. 147, Ex. 1.) CAS, in the

16

audit report, determined that between the third quarter of 2013 through the third quarter of

17

2017, Z-Line’s original royalty payment of $1,510,260 should have been $3,670,954. (Id.)

18

As a result, $2,160,694 was underreported and underpaid. (Id.) Based in part on the

19

information obtained from the audit report, on June 13, 2018, LFCL filed the instant motion

20

to modify the scheduling order and for leave to file a first amended complaint. (Doc. Nos.

21

124 (redacted), 147 (under seal).) LFCL seeks to supplement the complaint so that its

22

claims cover the entire audit period, and to amend it to add a claim for fraud. (Id.)

23

LEGAL STANDARDS

24

I.

25

When a plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint after the time specified in a

26

scheduling order, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 16 applies. Once issued, a

27

scheduling order cannot be modified except upon a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ.

28

P. 16(b). The “good cause” standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16

2
16cv929 JM (NLS)

1

the amendment. Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000).

2

II.

3

Rule 15 provides that leave to amend should be granted when justice requires it.

4

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The court may, “on just terms, permit a party to serve a

5

supplemental pleading setting out any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened after

6

the date of the pleading to be supplemented.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). Amendment may be

7

denied, however, when there is evidence of undue delay, bad faith, undue prejudice, or

8

futility. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). “The standard for granting leave to

9

amend is generous.” United States v. Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir.

10

2011) (internal quotation omitted).

11
12
13

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15

DISCUSSION
LFCL asks the court to modify the scheduling order and grant it leave to file the
proposed First Amended and Supplemental Complaint (“FAC”).

14

I.

15

Here, the deadline to amend the pleadings passed on October 28, 2016. (Doc. No.

16

32.) LFCL’s fraud claim is based on the audit report from CAS, which it did not receive

17

until May 14, 2018. Additionally, the time period over which LFCL seeks to supplement

18

its original complaint had not yet come to pass by the October 28, 2016 deadline.

Scheduling Order Modification

19

Z-Line argues that “[a]ll of the information upon which LFCL seeks to amend its

20

complaint have been known to it since 2017” through documents produced in discovery,

21

and thus LFCL did not act diligently. (Doc. No. 140 at 4.) However, Z-Line itself notes

22

that some of the information was produced “because Z-Line’s expert CPA advised Z-Line

23

that for an auditor to determine whether all royalties had properly been reported and paid,

24

an auditor would have to cross-check the sales of the licensed products against all product

25

sales.” (Doc. No. 140-1 (“Economou Decl.”) ¶ 3 (emphasis added).) The advice from Z-

26

Line’s own expert reveals that the parties intended to rely on the auditor to evaluate the

27

documents produced in discovery. Therefore, it is reasonable that LFCL waited until it

28

received the auditor’s analysis in the May 2018 report by CAS before seeking to modify
3
16cv929 JM (NLS)

1

the scheduling order. LFCL filed the instant motion a mere month after CAS issued the

2

audit report, demonstrating its diligence in pursuing amendment.

3

Consequently, good cause exists to modify the scheduling order.

4

II.

5

The court will first address LFCL’s request to supplement the complaint to cover the

6

Leave to File FAC

entire audit period, followed by LFCL’s request to add a claim for fraud.

7

A.

Supplementing the Complaint to Cover the Entire Audit Period

8

Z-Line argues that supplementing the complaint is unnecessary because the parties

9

already agreed that the audit would cover the period beginning July 26, 2013, to the date

10

on which the royalty audit was conducted. (Doc. No. 124-7.) Importantly, Z-Line does

11

not raise any evidence of undue delay, bad faith, undue prejudice, or futility regarding this

12

supplementation. Z-Line notes that because the parties agreed for the audit to cover

13

through the third quarter of 2017, LFCL should have sought to supplement its complaint

14

at the time of that agreement. However, LFCL did not receive the audit report, which

15

revealed Z-Line’s underpayments continued after the complaint was filed, until May 2018.

16

The month delay between LFCL receiving the audit report and filing the instant motion

17

does not reach the level of undue delay. Therefore, the court grants LFCL leave to

18

supplement the complaint to cover the entire audit period.

19

B.

Amending the Complaint to Add a Fraud Claim

20

After careful review of the parties’ briefs and the proposed FAC, the court finds that

21

LFCL has shown no undue delay 1 or bad faith in seeking to amend its complaint. LFCL

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Z-Line asserts that LFCL has alleged evidence of fraud since as early as September
2017. (Doc. No. 140 at 11.) In support, Z-Line offers a September 14, 2017 email from
LFCL’s counsel, in which he stated that LFCL “must reserve the right to allow the
auditor to conduct a forensic analysis . . . if the audit uncovers evidence of fraud.”
(Economou Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A (emphasis added).) Once again, however, that statement
was dependent on the results of the audit, which was not available to the parties until
May 24, 2018. Therefore, it does not demonstrate undue delay. Furthermore, the court
notes that some of the delay associated with obtaining the audit report can be attributed to
4
16cv929 JM (NLS)

1

filed the instant motion approximately one month after receiving the audit report from

2

CAS. As discussed above, LFCL acted diligently in doing so. The court will next address

3

whether there is evidence of futility or undue prejudice sufficient to warrant denying

4

LFCL’s motion.

5

1.

Futility

6

Z-Line argues that the proposed fraud claim is futile because it fails to state a claim

7

upon which relief may be granted based on the heightened pleading standard of Rule 9(b).

8

(Doc. No. 140 at 8–11.)

9

“While some courts liken the futility inquiry with that of a motion to dismiss, most

10

recognize that denial of leave to amend on futility grounds is rare.” Contasti v. City of

11

Solana Beach, 2010 WL 318404, at *2 (S.D. Cal., Jan. 20, 2010) (internal quotations and

12

corrections omitted). “In view of Rule 15(a)’s permissive standard, courts ordinarily defer

13

consideration of challenges to the merits of a proposed amended pleading until after leave

14

to amend is granted and the amended pleading is filed.” Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v.

15

Toshiba Corp., 2006 WL 3093812, at *2 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 31, 2006) (“Hynix’s arguments

16

should be addressed in a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, not in an opposition

17

to the present motion for leave to amend.”).

18
19
20

After reviewing the proposed FAC, the court finds that Z-Line’s regarding futility
arguments are more appropriate for a motion to dismiss.
2.

Undue Prejudice

21

LFCL does not seek to continue the trial date, but Z-Line argues that adding the

22

fraud claim would require reopening discovery and continuing the trial date. The court

23

agrees that the trial could not go forward as scheduled on August 20, 2108, if LFCL is

24

permitted to file the proposed FAC. LFCL does not oppose a short trial continuance to

25
26
27
28

Z-Line, as Z-Line opposed LFCL’s efforts to obtain an audit, (see Doc. Nos. 71, 86), and
both parties spent some weeks selecting the independent, third party auditor, (see Doc.
No. 109 at 2).
5
16cv929 JM (NLS)

1

allow for relevant defenses and limited discovery.

2

“A need to reopen discovery and therefore delay the proceedings supports a district

3

court’s finding of prejudice from a delayed motion to amend the complaint.” Lockheed

4

Martin Corp. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 194 F.3d 980, 986 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation

5

omitted). While the court recognizes that Z-Line will be somewhat prejudiced by the need

6

to delay trial and reopen discovery on a limited basis, it does not rise to the level of undue

7

prejudice because discovery can be limited so as to avoid prolonging proceedings any more

8

than is necessary to address the new fraud claim. Additionally, the court finds that it serves

9

the interest of justice to address the fraud claim in the same action, rather than requiring

10

LFCL to initiate a second suit.

11

In sum, the liberal standard for allowing amendment under Rule 15 and the lack of

12

undue delay, bad faith, undue prejudice, or futility support allowing LFCL to supplement

13

and amend its complaint. Accordingly, the court grants LFCL’s motion.

14

III.

15

Z-Line objects to and moves to strike Exhibit 2 of the Declaration of William P. Cole

16

in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (“Cole Declaration”).

17

(Doc. No. 141.) Exhibit 2 of the Cole Declaration contains the Declaration of Sidney P.

18

Blum in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (“Blum

19

Declaration”). (Doc. Nos. 124-6 (redacted); 147-2 (under seal).) Z-Line argues, inter alia,

20

that the Blum Declaration constitutes an expert opinion on topics beyond the scope of those

21

identified for Mr. Blum during expert discovery. (Doc. No. 141 at 2.) Because the court

22

did not rely on the Blum Declaration in ruling on the instant motion, the court denies Z-

23

Line’s motion to strike as moot, without prejudice.

Z-Line’s Objection and Motion to Strike Exhibit 2 of Cole Declaration

24

CONCLUSION

25

For the foregoing reasons, the court grants LFCL’s motion to modify the scheduling

26

order and for leave to file the proposed FAC. LFCL is directed to file the FAC within

27

seven (7) days of this order. The court denies Z-Line’s motion to strike, (Doc. No. 141),

28

as moot, without prejudice.
6
16cv929 JM (NLS)

1

Consequently, the court vacates the upcoming Pretrial Conference and trial dates.

2

The parties are ordered to contact Magistrate Judge Stormes’s chambers to set up a

3

conference at which the scope of discovery and a new schedule can be determined.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6
7

DATED: July 23, 2018
JEFFREY T. MILLER
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
16cv929 JM (NLS)