Diversified Lenders, LLC v. Amazon Logistics, Inc. et al

Filing 89

ORDER granting Defendant Amazon Logistics, Inc. 's 84 Motion to Amend Answer; Defendant may, within seven of the date of this Order, file an amended answer in substantially the form of Dkt. # 84 , signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(SWT)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6 7 DIVERSIFIED LENDERS, LLC, 8 9 10 11 Plaintiff, Cause No. C16-1232RSL v. AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., and VERTICAL HOLDINGS UNLIMITED, LLC, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER 12 Defendants. 13 14 AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., 15 16 17 18 19 Cross-Claim Plaintiff, v. VERTICAL HOLDINGS UNLIMITED, LLC, Cross-Claim Defendant. 20 21 22 23 24 This matter comes before the Court on defendant’s “Motion to File Amended Answer, Defenses, and Cross-Claim to Diversified Lenders, LLC’s Amended Complaint.” Dkt. # 84. Defendant seeks to amend its answer to add defenses for account stated and accord and satisfaction. 25 26 Courts “should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER 1 15(a)(2). There is a “strong policy in favor of allowing amendment” (Kaplan v. Rose, 49 F.3d 2 1363, 1370 (9th Cir. 1994)), and “[c]ourts may decline to grant leave to amend only if there is 3 strong evidence of undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated 4 5 6 failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, or futility of amendment, etc.” Sonoma County 7 Ass’n of Retired Employees v. Sonoma County, 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal 8 quotation marks and alterations omitted). 9 10 11 Plaintiff argues that the motion should be denied because defendant should have added these defenses earlier in the litigation and to do so now would cause undue difficulty in prosecuting the litigation. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on March 15, 2017, and the 12 Court extended the case management deadlines pursuant to the stipulation of the parties. The 13 14 deadline for amending pleadings was May 10, 2017, and this motion was timely filed on that 15 date. Absent additional evidence, no inference of undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive 16 arises from these facts. If, as plaintiff suggests, these defenses would require additional 17 discovery, the case management deadline provided a reasonable period to pursue whatever 18 matters plaintiff deems “new.” To the extent plaintiff is arguing that the proposed amendment 19 would be futile, it has not shown that the defenses, if asserted, would immediately be subject to 20 dismissal when challenged under Rule 12(b)(6). Nordyke v. King, 644 F.3d 776, 787 n.12 (9th 21 22 Cir. 2011). 23 24 25 26 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER -2- 1 For all of the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion to amend its answer is GRANTED. 2 Defendant may, within seven of the date of this Order, file an amended answer in substantially 3 the form of Dkt. # 84. 4 5 6 Dated this 20th day of June, 2017. 7 A Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER -3-

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?