The Cato Corporation v. L.A. Printex Industries, Inc.

Filing 54

ORDER granting 27 Motion to Strike 20 Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint is STRICKEN insofar as it exceeded the Proposed Amended Complaint earlier submitted to the court. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr on 3/27/2012. (tmg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:10cv462
[consolidated with 3:10cv543]
THE CATO CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
Vs.
L.A. PRINTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Defendant.
_____________________________________
L.A. PRINTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
Vs.
THE CATO CORP., a Delaware corporation;
VOLUMECOCOMO APPAREL, INC., a
California Corporation; LI & FUNG LTD.,
a Hong Kong Limited Company; LF USA,
INC., a New York Corporation; and
DOES 3 through 10,
Defendants.
_____________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

THIS MATTER is before the court on The Cato Corporation’s Motion to Strike Amended
Complaint. Having considered The Cato Corporation’s motion and reviewed the pleadings, the
court enters the following findings, conclusions, and Order.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
L.A. Printex Industries, Inc. (“L.A. Printex”) sought leave of court to file an amended
complaint. In its Motion for Leave, L.A. Printex asserted that its proposed amended complaint
“would add two new corporate defendants.” Along with its Motion, L.A. Printex submitted a
supporting memorandum and a copy of its proposed amended complaint, which named two
-1-

additional parties: VOLUMECOCOMO APPAREL, INC. and LI & FUNG, LTD. Based on such
representations, the court allowed L.A. Printex to amend its Complaint. Despite such specific
representations to the court, L.A. Printex filed an amended complaint against three additional
parties, this time including LF USA, Inc. Thus, L.A. Printex’s Amended Complaint has been filed
in violation of Rule 15, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and such portions as were not included
in the proposed Amended Complaint will be stricken.
Finally, the parties have spent a great deal of time discussing whether such proposed
defendant is even a proper party to this case as the statute of limitations has expired as to claims
against such defendant. L.A. Printex argues that its claims should relate back while The Cato
Corporation has cited decisions of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that provide such
amendment would not relate back. As that issue is not properly before the court, it will not be
addressed.
***
Representing that a document constitutes the “proposed amended complaint” and then filing
a document that exceeds such proposal is troubling. The court does not expect that such will recur
in this case.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that The Cato Corporation’s Motion to Strike Amended
Complaint (#27) is GRANTED, and the Amended Complaint is STRICKEN insofar as it exceeded
the Proposed Amended Complaint earlier submitted to the court.
Signed: March 27, 2012

-2-