HAMPDEN ENGINEERING CORPORATION v. SHEAR TECHNOLOGY, LLC
Filing
40
OPINION AND ORDER Denying 31 MOTION to Amend/Correct 20 Amended Complaint,, by HAMPDEN ENGINEERING CORPORATION. Signed by Magistrate Judge James B. Clark on 6/26/2018. (JB, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
HAMPDEN ENGINEERING
CORPORATION,
Civil Action No. 15-7424 (CCC)
Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
SHEAR TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
Defendant.
CLARK, Magistrate Judge
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on a motion by Plaintiff Hampden Engineering
Corporation (“Plaintiff”) for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint [ECF No. 31]. Defendant
Shear Technology, LLC (“Defendant”) opposes Plaintiff’s motion [ECF. No. 34]. For the reasons
set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion to file a Third Amended Complaint [ECF. No. 31] is DENIED.
I.
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1
Plaintiff commenced this action on October 13, 2015 by filing its Complaint. ECF No. 1.
On November 19, 2015, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. ECF No. 9.
In response to Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint and the Court
subsequently terminated Defendant’s motion. See ECF No. 11. On December 21, 2015, Defendant
filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. By Opinion and Order dated August
26, 2016, the Honorable Claire C. Cecchi (“Judge Cecchi”) granted in part and denied in part
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. ECF Nos. 18, 19. Specifically, the Court denied the motion to
dismiss Count I, and granted the motion to dismiss Counts II-VIII. Id.
1
The factual and procedural history of this case is set forth in the Court’s Opinion on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.
See ECF No. 18.
1
On September 23, 2016, Plaintiff filed its Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 20.
Shortly thereafter, Defendant again moved to dismiss. ECF No. 21. By Memorandum Opinion and
Order dated May 5, 2017, Judge Cecchi denied Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 25. On
July 26, 2017, the Court held an initial conference and entered a Pretrial Scheduling Order
(“Scheduling Order”) directing the parties to file motions for leave to amend the pleadings by no
later than November 9, 2017. Scheduling Order ¶¶ 15, 16, ECF No. 29. The next day on July 27,
2017, the Court entered an Amended Scheduling Order curing errors in the previous Scheduling
Order, but the date for the parties to file motions to amend remained the same.
Plaintiff now seeks leave to file a Third Amended Complaint. ECF No. 31. In its Third
Amended Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to introduce thirty-nine (39) new claims against Defendant.
Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s motion. Defendant presents arguments as to undue delay, bad faith,
prejudice and futility. Def.’s Br. at 1, ECF No. 34.
II.
DISCUSSION
A. Rule 15 Standard
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), “a party may amend its pleading only
with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave” and “[t]he court should freely give
leave when justice so requires.” The decision to grant leave to amend rests within the sound
discretion of the trial court. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 330
(1970). In determining a motion for leave to amend, Courts consider the following factors: (1)
undue delay on the part of the party seeking to amend; (2) bad faith or dilatory motive behind the
amendment; (3) repeated failure to cure deficiencies through multiple prior amendments; (4) undue
prejudice on the opposing party; and/or (5) futility of the amendment. See Great Western Mining
& Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 159, 174 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Foman v. Davis,
2
371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). In addition, “[t]he Third Circuit has consistently emphasized the liberal
approach to pleading embodied by Rule 15.” Endo Pharma v. Mylan Techs Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 32931, at *4 (D. Del. Mar. 11, 2013). The Court should only deny leave when these factors
“suggest that amendment would be ‘unjust’. . ..” Arthur v. Maersk, Inc., 434 F.3d 196, 203 (3d
Cir. 2006).
B. Rule 15 Analysis
Defendant presents arguments as to undue delay, bad faith, prejudice and futility. Def.’s
Br. at 1, ECF No. 34. The legal test governing motions to amend is in the disjunctive, meaning
that if Defendant meets its burden to prove any one of these elements, the Proposed Third
Amended Complaint should not be permitted. Therefore, to the extent necessary, the Court will
address each argument, in turn.
i.
Undue Delay
Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s delay in filing its motion was undue. Defendant puts
forth two arguments. Initially, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s motion has prolonged litigation,
and if it is accepted it will continue to prolong resolution of this matter which will cause the Court
to expend unnecessary time and resources. Specifically, Defendant argues that because this case
is over two years old, and because Plaintiff had more than four months to seek leave to file a Third
Amended Complaint, the Court should not grant Plaintiff’s motion. See Def.’s Br. at 4, ECF No.
34. Defendant further contends that the Court should not grant Plaintiff’s motion because Plaintiff
was aware of the factual allegations it now seeks to assert more than four and a half years ago and
Plaintiff failed to offer any explanation as to why it did not include its proposed claims in its
previous Amended Complaints. Id. at 5.
3
A finding of undue delay, without a finding of prejudice, may justify denial of a motion to
amend “when the amendment is grounded on ‘bad faith or dilatory motive, truly undue or
unexplained delay . . ..’” Inline Connection Corp. v. AOL Time Warner Inc., 237 F.R.D. 361, 369
(D.Del. 2006) (quoting Heyl & Patterson Int'l, Inc. v. F.D. Rich Housing of the Virgin Islands,
Inc., 663 F.2d 419, 425 (3d Cir. 1981)). Courts in this circuit have denied motions to amend based
solely on undue delay when a long delay was unexplained. See Lorenz v. CSX Corp., 1 F.3d 1406
(3d Cir. 1993) (affirming denial to amend where the district court made no finding of prejudice
but leave to amend was filed nearly two years after the prior amendment); USX Corp. v. Barnhart,
395 F.3d 161 (3d Cir. 2004) (affirming denial of leave to amend on the ground of unreasonable
delay where the movant waited more than three years to amend). “[W]hile bearing in mind the
liberal pleading philosophy of the federal rules, the question of undue delay requires that we focus
on the movant's reasons for not amending sooner.” Cureton, 252 F.3d at 273 (internal citations
omitted).
Upon review of Plaintiff’s Motion, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s moving papers are
devoid of any discussion on whether its delay in filing its Motion to Amend was undue. The section
of Plaintiff’s brief allegedly devoted to addressing “undue delay” simply consists of three
paragraphs of procedural history and case citations but fails to include any explanation as to why
Plaintiff did not move to amend sooner. See Cureton, 252 F.3d at 273. As Defendant notes in its
opposition papers, it appears that the proposed amendments Plaintiff seeks to include arose out of
actions that occurred as early as March of 2013, shortly after Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant
informing Defendant that it was in violation of the United States Copyright Act. See Third Am.
Compl. ¶ 57, ECF No. 31-3. Over the four-year period between Plaintiff’s letter to Defendant and
the filing of Plaintiff’s present Motion to Amend, Plaintiff had numerous opportunities to correct
4
any deficiencies in its original Complaint. In fact, Plaintiff has already filed three Complaints in
this matter. Plaintiff’s failure to thoroughly consider all of its allegations before filing its
Complaint, has cost this Court substantial time in resolving its motions and have significantly
prolonged resolution of this matter. Plaintiff’s repeated deficiencies have not only burdened the
Court, they have also prejudiced Defendant. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s delayed
motion to amend is undue. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a Third
Amended Complaint is DENIED.
A. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
The Court having considered the papers submitted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 78, and for
the reasons set forth above;
IT IS on this 26th day of June, 2018,
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint [ECF No.
31] is DENIED.
s/ James B. Clark, III
JAMES B. CLARK, III
United States Magistrate Judge
5
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?