Andrade v. American First Finance, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 MARIA ANDRADE, et al., 7 Case No. 18-cv-06743-SK Plaintiffs, 8 v. ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S 9 MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO AMEND AMERICAN FIRST FINANCE, INC., et AND TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIM 10 al., Regarding Docket Nos. 124, 125 11 Defendants.

12 Now before the Court are Maria Andrade’s motions for leave to amend her complaint and 13 to dismiss the newly filed counterclaim by Defendants American First Finance, Incorporated 14 (“AFF”) and Ahmad Fayez Al Rawashdeh. The Court finds these motions suitable for disposition 15 without oral argument and thus VACATES the hearing scheduled for July 27, 2020. See N.D. 16 Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). 17 After the arbitration issue was resolved, the Court set a case management conference and 18 informed the parties that they should be prepared to schedule deadlines up to and including trial. 19 (Dkt. No. 113.) The parties filed a joint case management statement on April 27, 2020 in which 20 Andrade stated that she had no plans to amend her Complaint at that time and stated that she 21 disagreed with Defendants’ position that she was required to amend her complaint to omit the 22 allegations related to Plaintiff Shaun Calkins. (Dkt. No. 114 at p. 7.) Defendants stated their 23 intent to amend their answers and requested fourteen days to do so. Defendants did not mention 24 any intention to allege additional affirmative defenses or to add a counterclaim. (Id.) 25 On May 5, 2020, after the case management conference, the Court set all remaining 26 deadlines for the case from the close of discovery through trial. (Dkt. No. 117.) On May 8, 27 Defendants AFF and Rawashdeh (collectively, “Defendants”) filed an amended answer which 1 contract. (Dkt. No. 118.) Defendants allege, in support of their counterclaim, the following four 2 allegations: 3 1. Andrade entered into a Security Agreement (the “Security Agreement”), which was assigned to AFF and which AFF has the 4 right to enforce, to finance the purchase of certain furniture identified in the invoice. 5 2. AFF and all others with current or former interests have 6 performed all of their obligations under the Security Agreement. 7 3. Andrade has defaulted under the terms of the Security Agreement by, among other things, failing to make payments when 8 due. As such, Andrade has materially breached her Security Agreement with AFF. 9 4. AFF has been damaged by Andrade’s default under the 10 Security Agreement as Andrade currently owes monies under the Security Agreement in an amount in excess of $500, plus interest, late 11 charges, fees, and costs. 12 (Id.) 13 Andrade moves to dismiss this counterclaim as too vague. A motion to dismiss is proper 14 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) where the pleadings fail to state a claim upon 15 which relief can be granted. On a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court construes the 16 allegations in the complaint in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and takes as true 17 all material allegations in the complaint. Sanders v. Kennedy, 794 F.2d 478, 481 (9th Cir. 1986). 18 Even under the liberal pleading standard of Rule 8(a)(2), “a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the 19 ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a 20 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 21 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). Rather, 22 a plaintiff must instead allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” 23 Id. at 570. 24 While Defendants could have stated their counterclaim with more clarity, given Andrade’s 25 allegations regarding the Security Agreement, it is clear that Andrade is aware of the agreement to 26 which Defendants refer. Therefore, the Court DENIES Andrade’s motion to dismiss. 27 Andrade also moves for leave to amend her complaint. Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of 1 Civ. P. 15(a); see also, e.g., Chodos v. West Publishing Co., 292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002) 2 (leave to amend granted with “extreme liberality”). Leave to amend is thus ordinarily granted 3 unless the amendment is futile, would cause undue prejudice to the defendants, or is being sought 4 by the plaintiff in bad faith or with a dilatory motive. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); 5 Eminence Capital LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003). Defendants argue 6 that Andrade should not be given leave to amend because the case deadlines have already been set. 7 However, the Court notes that after the deadlines were set, Defendants amended their answer to 8 allege additional affirmative defenses and to add a new counterclaim, none of which Defendants 9 discussed before the deadlines were set. Therefore, in the interests of fairness, the Court 10 GRANTS Andrande’s motion for leave to amend and will amend the schedule for both parties to 11 address the new allegations. Andrade must file her amended complaint by July 17, 2020. 12 Defendants may respond by August 7, 2020. 13 Therefore, the Court FURTHER ORDERS that the case management conference 14 scheduled for July 20, 2020 is continued to August 17, 2020. The parties shall meet and confer by 15 video conference to discuss a new case schedule in light of the amended complaint and amended 16 answer. The Court encourages the parties to communicate with each other and only raise disputed 17 issues with the Court on which the parties truly disagree. For example, in the joint case 18 management statement filed on April 27, 2020, the parties provided two descriptions of the facts 19 of the case, one from Andrade and one from Defendants. But the parties repeated the essentially 20 the same facts: 21 Plaintiff: Plaintiff Maria Andrade and the proposed class purchased furniture from retailer stores. Each consumer's purchase was financed 22 by Defendant American First Finance, Inc. . . . 23 Defendants: Plaintiff Maria Andrade and the proposed class allege they purchased furniture from retailer stores. Plaintiff alleges that 24 each consumer’s purchase was financed by Defendant American First Finance, Inc. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 1 (Dkt. No. 114.) The parties shall file their further joint case management conference by no later 2 than August 10, 2020. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: July 13, 2020 f + 5 SALLIE KIM 6 United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 a 12

© 15 16

it

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28