Eagle Rock Contracting LLC et al v. National Security Technologies, LLC

Filing 39

ORDER granting 33 Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint. The Clerk of the Court shall file Plaintiffs proposed Second Amended Complaint. Denying as moot 9 Motion for Entry of Clerks Default. Denying as moot 13 Motion to Dismiss. Denying as moot 22 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 3/13/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DKJ)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

EAGLE ROCK CONTRACTING, LLC,
4
5
6
7
8

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
NATIONAL SECURITY TECHNOLOGIES, )
LLC,
)
)
Defendant.
)

Case No.: 2:14-cv-01278-GMN-NJK
ORDER

9

Pending before the Court is the Motion to Amend (ECF No. 33) filed by Plaintiff Eagle

10
11

Rock Contracting, LLC (“Plaintiff”). Defendant National Security Technologies, LLC

12

(“Defendant”) filed a Response (ECF No. 35), and Plaintiff filed a Reply (ECF No. 37). For

13

the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend is GRANTED.

14

I.

BACKGROUND

15

This case arises out of a subcontract entered into by Plaintiff Eagle Rock Contracting,

16

LLC (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant National Security Technologies, LLC (“Defendant”). (Am.

17

Compl. ¶¶ 10–11, ECF No. 17). Plaintiff filed its Original Complaint on July 25, 2014,

18

asserting a claim of breach of contract. (See Compl., ECF No. 1). Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff

19

filed a Motion for Entry of Clerks Default (ECF No. 9). Then, Defendant filed a Motion to

20

Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) and 12(b)(6), asserting that

21

Plaintiff failed to properly serve the Original Complaint and the Original Complaint failed to

22

state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Mot. to Dismiss 1:23–27, ECF No. 13).

23

Plaintiff filed its Amended Complaint as a matter of course on October 9, 2014. (See

24

Am. Compl., ECF No. 17). Thereafter, Defendant filed a second Motion to Dismiss (ECF No.

25

22), to which Plaintiff filed its instant Motion to Amend (ECF No. 33).

Page 1 of 4

1

II.

LEGAL STANDARD
Pursuant to Rule 15(a), the court should “freely” give leave to amend “when justice so

2
3

requires,” and in the absence of a reason such as “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on

4

the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed,

5

undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of the

6

amendment, etc.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Generally, leave to amend is

7

only denied when it is clear that the deficiencies of the complaint cannot be cured by

8

amendment. See DeSoto v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 957 F.2d 655, 658 (9th Cir. 1992).

9

III.

10

DISCUSSION
Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend should be denied because Plaintiff’s

11

proposed Second Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,

12

and allowing amendment would be futile and prejudice Defendant. (Response 3:15–18, ECF

13

No. 35). In its proposed Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asserts the following two

14

causes of action: (1) breach of contract; and (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair

15

dealing. (Proposed SAC ¶¶ 18–31, ECF No. 33).

16

A breach of contract claim under Nevada law requires “(1) the existence of a valid

17

contract, (2) a breach by the defendant, and (3) damage as a result of the breach.” Med.

18

Providers Fin. Corp. II v. New Life Centers, L.L.C., 818 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1274 (D. Nev.

19

2011). Generally, a contract is valid and enforceable if there has been “an offer and

20

acceptance, meeting of the minds, and consideration.” May v. Anderson, 119 P.3d 1254, 1257

21

(Nev. 2005).

22

Here, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged the existence of a valid and enforceable contract.

23

Plaintiff alleges that the parties entered into a subcontract, “identified as Subcontract No.

24

123552 (with Exhibits A through F and F-1) to provide architectural-engineering design and

25

construction (design-build) services.” (Proposed SAC ¶ 8). Additionally, Plaintiff alleges

Page 2 of 4

1

various change order requests related to “additional work and incurred additional expenses

2

during the course of the project, outside the scope of subcontracted work in Subcontract No.

3

123552,” at Defendant’s express direction. (Id. ¶¶ 10–15). Furthermore, Plaintiff claims that

4

Defendant breached the subcontract and change order requests by refusing to pay Plaintiff “all

5

amounts due.” (Id. ¶ 23). As a result, Plaintiff claims that it has suffered damages “in an

6

amount exceeding $75,000.00, plus interest.” (Id. ¶ 24). Therefore, the proposed Second

7

Amended Complaint satisfies all of the necessary elements of a breach of contract claim under

8

Nevada law.

9

To state a claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, a plaintiff must

10

allege that: (1) plaintiff and defendant were parties to an agreement; (2) defendant owed a duty

11

of good faith to the plaintiff; (3) defendant breached that duty by performing in a manner that

12

was unfaithful to the purpose of the contract; and (4) plaintiff's justified expectations were

13

denied. Perry v. Jordan, 900 P.2d 335, 338 (Nev. 1995) (per curiam). In Nevada, an implied

14

covenant of good faith and fair dealing exists in every commercial contract, Consol.

15

Generator–Nevada, Inc. v. Cummins Engine Co., Inc., 971 P.2d 1251, 1256 (Nev. 1998) (per

16

curiam). A plaintiff may assert a claim for its breach “[w]here the terms of a contract are

17

literally complied with but one party to the contract deliberately countervenes the intention and

18

spirit of the contract,” Hilton Hotels Corp. v. Butch Lewis Prods., Inc., 808 P.2d 919, 922–923

19

(Nev. 1991).

20

Here, Plaintiff asserts that a contractual agreement existed and that Defendant owed an

21

implied duty of good faith to the Plaintiff because of the existence of the Agreement. (Proposed

22

SAC ¶ 27). Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant breached this duty “by failing to perform

23

the contract in a manner that was faithful to the purpose of the contract, thereby denying Eagle

24

Rock's justified expectations.” (Id. ¶ 28). More specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant

25

“demanded that [Plaintiff] perform additional work and incur additional expenses, outside the

Page 3 of 4

1

scope of subcontracted work in Subcontract No. 123552,” and “[b]ecause of [Defendant]’s

2

refusal to pay for work and expenses incurred at its demand,” Plaintiff has suffered damages.

3

(Id. ¶¶ 29–30). Thus, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's Complaint “give[s] [D]efendant fair

4

notice of a legally cognizable claim and the grounds on which it rests.” See Bell Atl. Corp. v.

5

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).

6

Accordingly, because the Court finds that Plaintiff’s proposed Second Amended

7

Complaint alleges sufficient facts to support its claims of breach of contract and breach of the

8

covenant of good faith and fair dealing, amendment would not be futile. Additionally, because

9

Plaintiff sought leave to amend less than four months after filing its Original Complaint, the

10

Court finds that amendment would not prejudice Defendant. Therefore, the Court grants

11

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend.

12

IV.

13

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (ECF No. 33) is

14

GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court shall file Plaintiff’s proposed Second Amended

15

Complaint, attached as Exhibit A to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (ECF No. 33), as Plaintiff’s

16

Second Amended Complaint.

17

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Clerks Default (ECF

18

No. 9), Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 13), and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

19

(ECF No. 22) are DENIED as moot.

20

DATED this 13th day of March, 2015.

21
22
23
24
25

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Judge

Page 4 of 4