Reverie at Marcato Owners Association v. Vision One LLC et al

Filing 101

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H Settle granting 94 Motion to Dismiss; granting 98 Motion to Amend. Counsel is directed to e-file their Amended Complaint. Wirsbo Company (a foreign corporation ) and Uponor Wirsbo Company terminated. (TG)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7

8 REVERIE AT MARCATO OWNERS
ASSOCIATION,
9
Plaintiff,
10
v.
11
VISION ONE LLC, et al.,
12
Defendants.
13

CASE NO. C12-6035 BHS
ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
DISMISS AND PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO AMEND

14
This matter comes before the Court on Uponor, Inc.’s (“Uponor”) motion to
15
dismiss (Dkt. 94) and Plaintiff Reverie at Marcato Owners’ Association’s (“Reverie”)
16
motion to amend (Dkt. 98).
17
On July 26, 2012, Reverie filed a class action complaint against numerous
18
defendants, including Uponor, Wirsbo Company, and Uponor Wirsbo, Inc. Dkt. 1, Exh.
19
1. On December 6, 2012, Uponor removed the matter to this Court. Dkt. 1.
20
On December 16, 2013, Uponor filed a motion to dismiss Wirsbo Company and
21
Uponor Wirsbo, Inc. arguing that these companies are merely predecessor names for
22

ORDER - 1

1 Uponor. Dkt. 94, ¶ 4. On January 6, 2014, Reverie responded and filed a motion to
2 amend its complaint. Dkts. 97 & 98. On January 10, 2014, Uponor replied. Dkt. 100.
3

In the event a court finds that dismissal is warranted, the court should grant the

4 plaintiff leave to amend unless amendment would be futile. Eminence Capital, LLC v.
5 Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003).
6

In this case, the Court grants both motions. Uponor has shown that there is no

7 need to maintain former business names as separate defendants. Reverie has shown that
8 leave to amend is warranted to name the proper defendant. Therefore, the Court
9 GRANTS Uponor’s motion to dismiss and Reverie’s motion to amend. Reverie shall file
10 the amended complaint as a separate docket entry on the electronic docket.
11

Finally, the Court declines to enter an order of judgment that Uponor is liable for

12 the actions of the dismissed defendants. The request is procedurally improper because it
13 was included in a response brief, and the request is substantively improper because
14 Reverie has failed to meet its burden of proof on this issue.
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated this 23rd day of January, 2014.

A

17
18

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22

ORDER - 2