Puri et al v. Khalsa et al

Filing 338

OPINION AND ORDER - The Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Rule 54(b) 305 , GRANTS in Part and DENIES in part Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend 301 , and GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Protective Order Regarding Scope of 30(b)(6) Deposition 328 . (See attached 6 page Opinion and Order). Signed on 12/20/2017 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (pg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

BIBIJI INDERJIT KAUR PURI;
RANBIR SINGH BHAI; KAMALJIT
KAUR KOHLI; KULBIR SINGH PURI,
No. 3:10-cv-01532-MO
Plaintiffs,
OPINION AND ORDER

v.
SOPURIIB KAUR KHALSA;
PERAIM KAUR KHALSA; SIRI
RAM KAUR KHALSA; KARTAR
SINGH KHALSA; KARAM SINGH
KHALSA; SIRI KARM KAUR
KHALSA; ROY LAMBERT;
SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON &
WYATT, an Oregon Professional
Corporation; LEWIS M. HOROWITZ;·
LANE POWELL PC, an Oregon
Professional Corporation; UNTO
INFINITY, LLC, an Oregon Limited
Liability Company; SIRI SINGH
SAHIB CORPORATION, an Oregon
non-profit corporation; GURUDHAN
SINGH IIBALSA; GURU HARi SINGH
KHALSA; AJEET SINGH KHALSA;
EWTC MANAGEMENT, LLC; DOES, 1-5,
Defendants.
MOSMAN,J.,
This matter comes before me on: (1) Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend [301]; (2)
Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration [305]; and (3) Defendants' Motion for Protective Order

1 - OPINION AND ORDER

Regarding Scope of30(b)(6) Deposition [328]. For the reasons below, I DENY Plaintiffs'
Motion for Reconsideration and for Entry of Final Judgment Pursuant to Rule 54(b) [305];
GRANT in pati and DENY in pati Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend [301]; and GRANT
Defendants' Motion for Protective Order Regarding Scope of30(b)(6) Deposition [328].

DISCUSSION
I.

Motion for Reconsideration and for Entry of Final Judgment
A.

Motion for Reconsideration

Plaintiffs move for reconsideration of this Comi's September 29, 2017 Order [292] and
subsequent October 5, 2017 Opinion and Order [296] granting in part and dismissing in part
Defendants' five Motions to Dismiss. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), "any
order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the
rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties ... may be revised at any time before the entry
of judgment." Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). "A motion for reconsideration can be granted if the court 1)
is presented with new evidence, 2) committed clear etTor or the first decision was manifestly
unjust, or 3) is aware of an intervening change in law." Tranxition, Inc. v. Lenovo (United

States), Inc., No. 3:12-CV-01065-HZ, 2015 WL 9918263, at *1 (D. Or. Apr. 1, 2015).
I deny the Motion for two reasons. First, Plaintiffs did not comply with Local Rule 7-1,
which requires a moving party to certify that "the pmiies made a good faith effmi through
personal or telephone conferences to resolve the dispute and have been unable to do so." LR 7l(a)(l)(A). It is undisputed that Plaintiffs' only effmi to comply with Rule 7-1 was to send an
email 3.5 hours before filing the Motion for Reconsideration. See Southwick Deel. [315], Ex. A.
"Simply sending an email to opposing counsel and not allowing sufficient time for a meaningful
conference by telephone or in person is insufficient compliance with the local rules of this
district." Ekeya v. Shriners Hosp.for Children, No. 3:17-CV-195-SI, 2017 WL 3707396, at *2
2 - OPINION AND ORDER

(D. Or. Aug. 28, 2017). Plaintiffs' actions in filing this Motion did not comply with Local Rule

7-1.
But even if Plaintiffs had complied with the Local Rules, patiies seeking reconsideration
must do more than "re-rais[e] arguments previously made or assert[] new legal theories or new
facts which could have been presented before the initial hearing." Sam v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Tr.
Co., No. 03:13-CV-01521-MO, 2013 WL 6817888, at *2 (D. Or. Dec. 23, 2013). Here, Plaintiffs

argue the Court committed clear error and that the first decision was manifestly unjust. But all of
their arguments either re-raise previous arguments or asse1i new legal theories that the Plaintiffs
could have raised earlier. I therefore DENY the Motion for Reconsideration.
B.

Motio11for Entry of Final Judgment

Plaintiffs alternatively move for entry of final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 54(b) as to the claims and parties dismissed in the Cami's Opinion and Order. "Rule
54(b) permits a district court to enter judgment on 'fewer than all' claims or patiies where there
is 'no just reason for delay.'" S.E.C. v. Platforms Wireless Int'l Co1p., 617 F.3d 1072, 1084 (9th
Cir. 2010) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)). "In order to determine whether there is any just reason
for delay, the district court should consider both sound judicial administration and the equities
involved." Yeo v. Wash. Cty., No. 3:08-CV-01317-AC, 2011WL2460876, at *1 (D. Or. June 17,
2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). "With regard to sound judicial administration, it is
proper to consider 'whether the claims under review [are] separable' and whether granting the
54(b) request might result in duplication of proceedings, e.g., multiple appellate decisions on the
same issues of law or fact." Id (quoting Curtiss-Wright Co1p. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8
(1980)).

3 - OPINION AND ORDER

Here, the Opinion and Order rendered a "final judgment" as to the issues and parties I
dismissed with prejudice. But I DENY the request for Rule 54(b) certification because I find a
just reason for delay in this case. Granting entry of final judgment would not serve the interests
of sound judicial administration because the factual allegations underpinning the dismissed
claims and the remaining claims all relate to the same relationships among individuals and
events. See Morrison-Knudsen Co. v. Archer, 655 F.2d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1981) ("A similarity of
legal or factual issues will weigh heavily against entry of judgment under the rnle. "). Regarding
the equities, Plaintiffs argue this case has been going on for seven years and the underlying
events are more than a decade old. Motion [305]. But allowing piecemeal appeals might delay
this case even longer, rather than resolving it quickly. I therefore DENY Plaintiffs' request for
Rule 54(b) certification.

II.

Motion for Leave to Amencl
Plaintiffs seek leave to amend to allege new types of damages and make several other
changes. 1 "Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), after twenty days from the date when the initial
complaint was served, 'a party may amend [its] pleading only by leave of court or by written
consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires."' Jackson

v. Bank ofHaw., 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting FRCP 15(a)). "A trial comt may
deny such a motion if permitting an amendment would prejudice the opposing pa1ty, produce an
undue delay in the litigation, or result in futility for lack of merit." Id.

i. Prejudice to the opposing parties
"Prejudice to the opposing party is the most important factor." Id Plaintiffs filed a
"Revised/C01Tected" Second Amended Complaint (SAC) in May 2017 that contained the same
1

Once again, Plaintiffs did not comply with Local Rule 7-1 when filing this motion. Plaintiffs' only effort to
comply with Rule 7-1 was to send an email 3.5 hours before filing the Motion for Reconsideration. See McGrmy
Deel. [307), Ex. I.

4 - OPJNION AND ORDER

allegations of "new" damages. After the Court's September I, 2017 order striking the
"Revised/Corrected" SAC, Plaintiffs waited almost two months to file this Motion on October
23, 2017, despite an explicit statement in the Order that they could refile a Motion for Leave to
Amend. During that time, the parties patiicipated in a major discovery conference with the Court
regarding the scope of discovery, the Comi issued an Opinion and Order on Defendants'
Motions to Dismiss, and discovery proceeded, including Defendants' depositions ofBibiji,
Ranbir, and Kamaljit. See [281, 287, 296]. And although Defendants asked Plaintiffs in their
depositions generally about some of the damages now alleged in their Proposed Third Amended
Complaint, the discovery deadline is fast approaching and Defendants would likely need to redepose most of the Plaintiffs. I conclude Defendants would be prejudiced by granting leave to
amend to add new forms of damages, with the exception of one natTow type of damages.
Defendants will not be prejudiced by the inclusion of damages for compensation paid for service
on the UI and/or SSSC boards, because Defendants asked Plaintiffs about these damages at their
depositions, and these are the types of damages that would be included in general damages
flowing from the remaining claims.

ii. Undue delay
"Relevant to evaluating the delay issue is whether the moving patty knew or should have
known the facts and theories raised by the amendment in the original pleading." Jackson, 902
F.2d at 1388. Here, the new allegations regarding intellectual property licensing, Ranbir's
te1mination from GTO, and the YB Teachings income are based on events that took place before
this action was filed in 2010, some of these events were litigated in an arbitration beginning in
2011, and as discussed above, nearly identical paragraphs appear in the "Revised/Conected"
SAC, filed in May 2017. Plaintiffs knew of the facts and theories raised by the amendment many
years ago, and could have included these allegations at any time during this litigation.
5 - OPINION AND ORDER

I therefore DENY leave to amend to allege new theories of damages based on prejudice
and undue delay, except to allow Plaintiffs to allege damages for compensation paid for service
on the UI and/or SSSC boards.

III.

Motion for Protective Order
Defendants Kartar Singh Khalsa, Sopurkh Kaur Khalsa, Siri Singh Sahib Corporation,
and Unto Infinity, LLC filed a Motion for Protective Order [328] to limit the scope of upcoming
depositions.2 In accordance with my rulings above, I GRANT Defendants' Motions for

Protective Order Regarding the Scope of30(b)(6) Deposition [328]. Plaintiffs are ordered to
nall'ow the deposition topics as proposed by Defendants.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, I DENY Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration and for
Entry of Final Judgment Pursuant to Rule 54(b) [305]; GRANT in part and DENY in part
Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend [301]; and GRANT Defendants' Motion for Protective
Order Regarding Scope of30(b)(6) Deposition [328].

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this£ day of December, 2017.

Chief United States Distt· ct Judge

2

Defendant Schwabe also filed a Motion for Protective Order [324], but withdrew the Motion. I denied
the Motion for Protective Order [324] as moot. [337].

6 - OPINION AND ORDER