1 2 3 4
5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 CALEB ALLEN and KASEY ALLEN, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-00195-LK 11 individuals, and as plaintiff's father and mother and with father as guardian on behalf ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED 12 of minor child, A.A., MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 13 Plaintiffs, AND JOINDER OF SHENZHEN v. CHEYANG TECHNOLOGY CO., 14 LTD. AS A DEFENDANT AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, 15 Defendant. 16 17 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Leave to File First 18 Amended Complaint and Joinder of Shenzhen Cheyang Technology Co., Ltd. as a Defendant. Dkt. 19 No. 21. For the following reasons, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion. 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 On February 12, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendant Amazon.com 22 Services LLC (“Amazon”), asserting claims of products liability, strict products liability, breach 23 of implied warranties, negligent undertaking, and infliction of emotional distress. Dkt. No. 1 at 8– 24 1 17. Plaintiffs’ claims arise from Plaintiff A.A.’s alleged ingestion of a battery that purportedly fell 2 out of a wireless remote control mounted on the steering wheel of Plaintiffs’ vehicle, which was 3 purchased from a previous owner. Id. at 2. At the time they filed their complaint, Plaintiffs had not 4 yet identified the specific product in question, but alleged that the remote control was sold under
5 a brand promoted by Amazon. Id. 6 Plaintiffs represent that they have since received discovery from the previous owner of 7 Plaintiffs’ vehicle, which led to the identification of the remote control as a “Podofo Double Din 8 Car Stereo with Apple Carplay Android Auto, 7 Inch Touch Screen Bluetooth Radio Car Audio 9 with Backup Camera, Voice Control, FM Radio, Mirror Link, USB Playback & Charging.” Dkt. 10 No. 21 at 3; Dkt. No. 21-2 at 2. Plaintiffs aver that this product is associated with Shenzhen 11 Cheyang Technology, Co., Ltd. (“SCT”), who they believe is the manufacturer and/or supplier of 12 the remote control and consequently “may have knowledge related to the manufacture and design 13 of the Defective Product.” Dkt. No. 21 at 3; see also Dkt. No. 21-3 at 3. 14 On July 25, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their first motion for leave to file an amended complaint
15 and to join SCT. Dkt. No. 19. The Court denied that motion because the proposed complaint failed 16 to adequately plead the parties’ citizenship and therefore failed to establish subject matter 17 jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 20 at 4–6. Plaintiffs filed the instant motion on August 7, 2024, seeking leave 18 to file a proposed amended complaint that both joins SCT and “adequately plead[s] the citizenship 19 of each of the parties.” Dkt. No. 21 at 2; see also Dkt. No. 21-1 (proposed amended complaint). 20 II. DISCUSSION 21 A. Legal Standards 22 1. Amendment 23 Under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a “court should freely give leave”
24 to amend a pleading “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “[T]his policy is to be 1 applied with extreme liberality.” Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 2 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 3 1990)). Courts may deny a motion for leave to amend “if there is strong evidence of ‘undue delay, 4 bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by
5 amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of 6 the amendment, [or] futility of amendment, etc.’” Sonoma Cnty. Ass’n of Retired Emps. v. Sonoma 7 Cnty., 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). 8 Furthermore, “the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party . . . carries the greatest weight.” 9 Eminence Cap., LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam). “Absent 10 prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman factors, there exists a presumption 11 under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Id. 12 2. Joinder 13 Under Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may be permissively joined 14 as a defendant in an action if “(A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or
15 in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of 16 transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will 17 arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2); see also POW Nev., LLC v. Doe 2, No. C17-1649- 18 RSM, 2018 WL 525958, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 24, 2018). Joinder must “comport with the 19 principles of fundamental fairness” and must not prejudice either side. Coleman v. Quaker Oats 20 Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1296 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Desert Empire Bank v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 623 21 F.2d 1371, 1375 (9th Cir. 1980)). 22 Rule 20 is “construed liberally in order to promote trial convenience and to expedite the 23 final determination of disputes, thereby preventing multiple lawsuits.” League to Save Lake Tahoe
24 v. Tahoe Reg’l Plan. Agency, 558 F.2d 914, 917 (9th Cir. 1977); see also United Mine Workers v. 1 Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 724 (1966) (“Under the Rules, the impulse is toward entertaining the broadest 2 possible scope of action consistent with fairness to the parties; joinder of claims, parties and 3 remedies is strongly encouraged.”). The same-transaction and common-question requirements are 4 “not rigid tests, but rather are flexible concepts used by the courts to implement the purpose of
5 Rule 20 and therefore are to be read as broadly as possible whenever doing so is likely to promote 6 judicial economy.” Almont Ambulatory Surgery Ctr., LLC v. UnitedHealth Grp., Inc., 99 F. Supp. 7 3d 1110, 1187–88 (C.D. Cal. 2015) (cleaned up). 8 B. Leave to Amend and Joinder Are Granted 9 The Court finds that leave to amend should be granted. The Court is satisfied that Plaintiffs’ 10 request is not driven by bad faith or delay, but rather to join SCT as a defendant. See Dkt. No. 21 11 at 4–5; Knupp v. Amazon.com Services, LLC, No. 1:23-cv-01112-NODJ-BAM, 2024 WL 871930, 12 at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 29, 2024). And there is no indication that amendment would prejudice 13 Amazon, as Plaintiffs’ motion is unopposed and timely, the case is still in the early stages of 14 discovery, and trial will not occur until January 12, 2026. See Dkt. No. 13 at 1–2; Dkt. No. 21 at
15 3–4; see also Larrison v. Ocean Beauty Seafoods, LLC, No.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 CALEB ALLEN and KASEY ALLEN, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-00195-LK 11 individuals, and as plaintiff's father and mother and with father as guardian on behalf ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED 12 of minor child, A.A., MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 13 Plaintiffs, AND JOINDER OF SHENZHEN v. CHEYANG TECHNOLOGY CO., 14 LTD. AS A DEFENDANT AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, 15 Defendant. 16 17 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Leave to File First 18 Amended Complaint and Joinder of Shenzhen Cheyang Technology Co., Ltd. as a Defendant. Dkt. 19 No. 21. For the following reasons, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion. 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 On February 12, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendant Amazon.com 22 Services LLC (“Amazon”), asserting claims of products liability, strict products liability, breach 23 of implied warranties, negligent undertaking, and infliction of emotional distress. Dkt. No. 1 at 8– 24 1 17. Plaintiffs’ claims arise from Plaintiff A.A.’s alleged ingestion of a battery that purportedly fell 2 out of a wireless remote control mounted on the steering wheel of Plaintiffs’ vehicle, which was 3 purchased from a previous owner. Id. at 2. At the time they filed their complaint, Plaintiffs had not 4 yet identified the specific product in question, but alleged that the remote control was sold under
5 a brand promoted by Amazon. Id. 6 Plaintiffs represent that they have since received discovery from the previous owner of 7 Plaintiffs’ vehicle, which led to the identification of the remote control as a “Podofo Double Din 8 Car Stereo with Apple Carplay Android Auto, 7 Inch Touch Screen Bluetooth Radio Car Audio 9 with Backup Camera, Voice Control, FM Radio, Mirror Link, USB Playback & Charging.” Dkt. 10 No. 21 at 3; Dkt. No. 21-2 at 2. Plaintiffs aver that this product is associated with Shenzhen 11 Cheyang Technology, Co., Ltd. (“SCT”), who they believe is the manufacturer and/or supplier of 12 the remote control and consequently “may have knowledge related to the manufacture and design 13 of the Defective Product.” Dkt. No. 21 at 3; see also Dkt. No. 21-3 at 3. 14 On July 25, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their first motion for leave to file an amended complaint
15 and to join SCT. Dkt. No. 19. The Court denied that motion because the proposed complaint failed 16 to adequately plead the parties’ citizenship and therefore failed to establish subject matter 17 jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 20 at 4–6. Plaintiffs filed the instant motion on August 7, 2024, seeking leave 18 to file a proposed amended complaint that both joins SCT and “adequately plead[s] the citizenship 19 of each of the parties.” Dkt. No. 21 at 2; see also Dkt. No. 21-1 (proposed amended complaint). 20 II. DISCUSSION 21 A. Legal Standards 22 1. Amendment 23 Under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a “court should freely give leave”
24 to amend a pleading “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “[T]his policy is to be 1 applied with extreme liberality.” Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 2 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 3 1990)). Courts may deny a motion for leave to amend “if there is strong evidence of ‘undue delay, 4 bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by
5 amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of 6 the amendment, [or] futility of amendment, etc.’” Sonoma Cnty. Ass’n of Retired Emps. v. Sonoma 7 Cnty., 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). 8 Furthermore, “the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party . . . carries the greatest weight.” 9 Eminence Cap., LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam). “Absent 10 prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman factors, there exists a presumption 11 under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Id. 12 2. Joinder 13 Under Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may be permissively joined 14 as a defendant in an action if “(A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or
15 in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of 16 transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will 17 arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2); see also POW Nev., LLC v. Doe 2, No. C17-1649- 18 RSM, 2018 WL 525958, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 24, 2018). Joinder must “comport with the 19 principles of fundamental fairness” and must not prejudice either side. Coleman v. Quaker Oats 20 Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1296 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Desert Empire Bank v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 623 21 F.2d 1371, 1375 (9th Cir. 1980)). 22 Rule 20 is “construed liberally in order to promote trial convenience and to expedite the 23 final determination of disputes, thereby preventing multiple lawsuits.” League to Save Lake Tahoe
24 v. Tahoe Reg’l Plan. Agency, 558 F.2d 914, 917 (9th Cir. 1977); see also United Mine Workers v. 1 Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 724 (1966) (“Under the Rules, the impulse is toward entertaining the broadest 2 possible scope of action consistent with fairness to the parties; joinder of claims, parties and 3 remedies is strongly encouraged.”). The same-transaction and common-question requirements are 4 “not rigid tests, but rather are flexible concepts used by the courts to implement the purpose of
5 Rule 20 and therefore are to be read as broadly as possible whenever doing so is likely to promote 6 judicial economy.” Almont Ambulatory Surgery Ctr., LLC v. UnitedHealth Grp., Inc., 99 F. Supp. 7 3d 1110, 1187–88 (C.D. Cal. 2015) (cleaned up). 8 B. Leave to Amend and Joinder Are Granted 9 The Court finds that leave to amend should be granted. The Court is satisfied that Plaintiffs’ 10 request is not driven by bad faith or delay, but rather to join SCT as a defendant. See Dkt. No. 21 11 at 4–5; Knupp v. Amazon.com Services, LLC, No. 1:23-cv-01112-NODJ-BAM, 2024 WL 871930, 12 at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 29, 2024). And there is no indication that amendment would prejudice 13 Amazon, as Plaintiffs’ motion is unopposed and timely, the case is still in the early stages of 14 discovery, and trial will not occur until January 12, 2026. See Dkt. No. 13 at 1–2; Dkt. No. 21 at
15 3–4; see also Larrison v. Ocean Beauty Seafoods, LLC, No. C20-0906-RSM, 2021 WL 2646450, 16 at *1 (W.D. Wash. June 28, 2021); Knupp, 2024 WL 871930, at *2. Joinder also appears warranted 17 because Plaintiffs’ claims against Amazon and SCT arise out of the same transactions or 18 occurrences and involve similar questions of fact and law. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that SCT 19 is “liable for manufacturing and/or supplying” the remote control sold by Amazon, and they intend 20 to assert the same claims against SCT that they currently assert against Amazon. Dkt. No. 21 at 5; 21 Dkt. No. 21-1 at 3, 10–18. 22 Furthermore, it appears from Plaintiffs’ proposed pleading that the Court has diversity 23 jurisdiction over this matter and that joinder of SCT would not destroy that jurisdiction. Plaintiffs’
24 proposed amended complaint adequately pleads that they are citizens of Louisiana and that 1 Amazon is a citizen of both Delaware and Washington by way of its sole member, Amazon.com 2 Sales, Inc. Dkt. No. 21-1 at 4–5 (citing Dkt. No. 10 at 1). Plaintiffs also plead on information and 3 belief that SCT “is a limited company . . . formed and existing under the laws of the People[’]s 4 Republic of China, with a principal place of business . . . [in] Shenzhen, China,” and that “all of
5 the members of SCT are citizens of China and no members of SCT are citizens of the state of 6 Louisiana.” Id. at 5. Therefore, regardless of whether SCT is considered to be a limited liability 7 company or a corporation for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded 8 its citizenship. See Yancheng Shanda Yuanfeng Equity Inv. P’ship v. Wan, No. 20-cv-2198, 2023 9 WL 6053808, at *2 (C.D. Ill. Aug. 25, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, 2023 WL 10 6050214 (C.D. Ill. Sept. 15, 2023); Nanshan Am. Adv. Aluminum Techs., LLC v. Nemick, No. 4:13- 11 CV-078 JD, 2017 WL 3333963, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 4, 2017). Based on the allegations in the 12 proposed amended complaint, complete diversity exists and the amount in controversy exceeds 13 $75,000. Dkt. No. 21-1 at 4–5. 14 III. CONCLUSION
15 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an 16 amended complaint and to join SCT as a defendant in this case. Dkt. No. 21. Plaintiffs must file a 17 clean version of their amended complaint, Dkt. No. 21-1, by August 27, 2024. 18 Dated this 20th day of August, 2024. 19 A 20 Lauren King United States District Judge 21 22 23 24