Puget Soundkeeper Alliance v. APM Terminals Tacoma LLC
Filing
253
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS 225 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND GRANTING PLAINTIFFS 246 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND, signed by Judge Benjamin H. Settle. (ERA)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA
6
7
8
PUGET SOUNDKEEPER ALLIANCE,
Plaintiff,
9
10
v.
APM TERMINALS TACOMA, LLC, et
al.,
11
CASE NO. C17-5016 BHS
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND
GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
Defendants.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants SSA Marine, Inc., and SSA
Terminals, LLC’s (“SSA”) motion for attorney’s fees and costs, Dkt. 225, and Plaintiff
Puget Soundkeeper Alliance’s (“Soundkeeper”) fourth motion to amend the complaint,
Dkt. 246.
On February 14, 2019, SSA filed a motion for attorney’s fee and costs. Dkt. 246.
On March 1, 2019, Soundkeeper responded. Dkt. 233. On March 8, 2019, SSA replied.
Dkt. 235.
20
21
22
ORDER - 1
1
On May 2, 2019, Soundkeeper filed a fourth motion to amend its complaint. Dkt.
2
246. On May 13, 2019, Defendant Port of Tacoma (“Port”) responded. Dkt. 247. On
3
May 17, 2019, Soundkeeper replied. Dkt. 251.
4
Regarding the motion to amend, the Court grants Soundkeeper leave to amend the
5
complaint. Although the Port objects based on undue delay and prejudice, the unusual
6
circumstances of this matter, with the Court striking the trial schedule and recently
7
dismissing SSA, establish that any delay is neither undue nor prejudicial. The Port also
8
argues that Soundkeeper’s amended claims are futile. While the Court agrees that the
9
complaint contains some inconsistencies and could have been clearer, the Port has failed
10
to establish that Soundkeeper’s claims could not be saved by amendment if the Court
11
subsequently grants a motion to dismiss for lack of clarity or failure to provide sufficient
12
allegations to state a claim. See United States v. Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d 984, 995
13
(9th Cir. 2011) (an amendment is “futile” if it is clear that the complaint could not be
14
saved by amendment). Therefore, the Court GRANTS Soundkeeper’s motion, and
15
Soundkeeper shall file the amended complaint as a separate entry on the electronic
16
docket.
17
Regarding SSA’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs, the Court finds that the
18
motion is premature. SSA relies on the Clean Water Act’s fee-shifting provision to
19
request fees but fails to establish any “final order” of the Court. 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)
20
(“The court, in issuing any final order in any action brought pursuant to this section, may
21
award costs of litigation (including reasonable attorney and expert witness fees) to any
22
prevailing or substantially prevailing party”). Once final judgment has been entered,
ORDER - 2
1
SSA may refile its motion. Currently, however, the Court DENIES the motion without
2
prejudice as premature.
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
Dated this 4th day of June, 2019.
A
5
6
BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
ORDER - 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?