Garlock v. OptimisCorp

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: June 6, 2023
• Docket: 3:22-cv-05108
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 The Honorable Barbara J. Rothstein

5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE

8 GARLOCK et al.,

9 Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-5108-BJR v. 10

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 11 OPTIMISCORP, AMEND

12 Defendant.

15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 Plaintiffs Patrick and Larene Garlock and Michael and Nancy Jennings (“Plaintiffs”) 17 request leave to amend their complaint in response to Defendant OptimisCorp’s demand for 18 indemnity from Plaintiffs. Dkt. No. 29. Plaintiffs’ proposed amended complaint adds a single 19 claim for declaratory relief, asserting that an indemnity agreement signed by Mr. Garlock and Mr. 20 Jennings after OptimisCorp purchased a promissory note secured by Plaintiffs’ personal 21 residences, which is the subject of Plaintiffs’ original complaint, is unenforceable. Defendant 22 23 opposes the motion. Dkt. No. 32. Having reviewed the motion, opposition and reply thereto, the 24 record of the case, and the relevant legal authority, the Court will grant the motion. The reasoning 25 for the Court’s decision follows. 26

27 1 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 2 Courts have discretion to allow a party to amend a complaint when justice requires it. Fed. 3 R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2); Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) 4 (“leave shall be freely given when justice so requires”). This policy is to be applied with “extreme 5 liberality.” Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001). When 6 7 considering a motion for leave to amend, a court must consider the following five factors: (1) bad 8 faith; (2) undue delay; (3) prejudice to the opposing party; (4) futility of the amendment; and (5) 9 whether there has been a prior amendment. Nunez v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805, 808 (9th Cir. 2004)). 10 Further, the court must grant all inferences in favor of allowing amendment. Id. 11 III. DISCUSSION 12 It is apparent upon review of the factual background of this case, together with the nature 13 of the claims and counterclaims, that the indemnity agreement that is the subject of the proposed 14 15 amendment is intertwined with the other issues in this case. Therefore, amendment must be 16 allowed. The Court is not persuaded by Defendant’s objections to the motion. Whether the statute 17 of limitations has run is a question of fact to be determined. As for the forum selection clause, this 18 Court finds that the clause is permissive rather than restrictive, and as such, does not prohibit this 19 Court from exercising jurisdiction over the matter. See D’Ewart Representatives, L.L.C. v. 20 Sediver USA, Inc., 2023 WL 2598949, *3 (W.D. Wash. March 22, 2023). 21 To the extent the amendment requires adjustment of the previously scheduled case 22 23 management dates, the Court instructs the parties to present a revised scheduling order (including 24 a fixed date for mediation) to the Court no later than June 21, 2023. 25 26

27 1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the 3 complaint. The amended complaint, which is attached as Exhibit A to Plaintiffs’ motion, shall be 4 filed forthwith. In addition, the parties shall file a proposed revised case schedule on or before 5 June 21, 2023. The proposed schedule shall include a fixed mediation date. 6 7 Dated this 6th day of June, 2023. 8 A 9 B arbara Jacobs Rothstein 10 U.S. District Court Judge

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27