Hydro Syntec Chemicals, Inc. v. Chinook Ventures, Inc. et al

Filing 40

ORDER granting 36 Motion to Amend. Counsel is directed to e-file their Amended Complaint within five days of this Order. Signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)

1

THE HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

9
10
11

HYDRO SYNTEC CHEMICALS, INC., a
Colorado corporation,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

NO. CV 11-05470 RBL
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO AMEND

CHINOOK VENTURES, INC., a Nevada
corporation; CHINOOK VENTURES, INC. dba
CHINOOK VENTURES LV, a Nevada
corporation; MILLENNIUM BULK
TERMINALS LONGVIEW, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; RITCHIE BROS
AUCTIONEERS (AMERICA) INC., a
Washington corporation,

15
16
17
18
19

Defendants.

20
21

THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend its Complaint

22

and Join New Parties. [Dkt. #36]. Defendants oppose the Motion, arguing that the claims are

23

baseless and/or premature, and that amendment would be futile.

24
25

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, leave to amend shall be freely granted when justice so
requires. See Price v. Kramer, 200 F.3d 1237, 1250 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S.

26

816 (2000). The purpose of the rule is to encourage decisions on the merits rather than on the
ORDER - 1 of 2
(CV 11-05470 RBL)

1

precision (or imprecision, as the case may be) of the pleadings. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d

2

1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000).

3
4

In determining whether to grant leave to amend, district courts look to factors such as
“undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure

5
6

deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by

7

virtue of the allowance of the amendment, futility of the amendment, etc.” Foman v. Davis

8

371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).

9

consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight.” Eminence

10
11

Not all of these factors apply with equal force; “it is the

Capital LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003).
Defendants have not persuaded the court that any of these factors is present, or that

12

any deficiencies in the Plaintiff’s new claims should not be addressed on the merits. The
13
14
15

Motion to Amend [Dkt. #36] is therefore GRANTED and Plaintiff shall file its Amended
Complaint [Dkt. #37-1] within five days of the date of this Order.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Dated this 23rd day of January, 2012.

18

A

19
20

RONALD B. LEIGHTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26

ORDER - 2 of 2
(CV 11-05470 RBL)