Heko Services, Inc. v. ChemTrack Alaska, Inc.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: November 13, 2019
• Docket: 2:18-cv-01587
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 1

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 HEKO SERVICES, INC., 9

Plaintiff, 10 Case No. 2:18-cv-01587-RAJ v. 11 ORDER

CHEMTRACK ALASKA, INC., 12 Defendant. 13

14 I. INTRODUCTION 15 This matter is before the Court on ChemTrack Alaska, Inc.’s motions to modify 16 the scheduling order deadline and for leave to file a third-party complaint. Dkt. ## 24, 17 26. For the reasons below, the motion to modify the scheduling order is DENIED and 18 the Court STRIKES as moot the motion seeking leave to file a third-party complaint. 19 II. BACKGROUND 20 This case involves a time charter between Heko Services, Inc. (“Heko”) and 21 ChemTrack Alaska, Inc. (“ChemTrack”). Dkt. # 1. ChemTrack moves to modify the 22 Court’s scheduling order to file a third-party complaint against L&M Equipment, Inc. 23 (“L&M”). L&M was responsible for supplying and building a containment perimeter 24 around the soil loaded onto Heko’s barge and subsequently loss during transport. 25 ChemTrack claims that although it was aware L&M failed to deliver the promised 26 containers, and that various witnesses identified the height of the containers as one of many 27 1 possible causes of the loss, it was not obvious that Heko was focusing intently on the 2 container height as a cause of the loss until Heko filed its motion for summary judgment 3 in mid-September. 4 III. DISCUSSION 5 The standard of review for amending a Rule 16 scheduling order must be applied in 6 the Court’s decision. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607–08 (9th 7 Cir.1992). Once a district court has filed a pretrial scheduling order pursuant to Federal 8 Rule of Civil Procedure 16, that rule’s standards controls. Id. Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ 9 standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment. Id. at 609. 10 While the court may consider the “existence or degree of prejudice” to the opposing party, 11 the focus of the court’s inquiry is upon the moving party’s explanation for failure to timely 12 move for leave to amend. Id. 13 The Court scheduling order, issued on December 27, 2018, gave a deadline for 14 joining parties of February 28, 2019. Dkt. # 12. ChemTrack claims, however, that it was 15 unaware of sufficient facts to bring a claim against L&M until recently. Dkt. # 31 at 2. 16 The Court disagrees. The complaint, which was filed on October 30, 2018, states that 17 “ChemTrack owed Heko the duty to reasonably load the barge in Naknek, Alaska” and that 18 “ChemTrack breached this duty by loading the barge in an unreasonable manner.” Dkt. # 19 1, ¶¶ 42, 43. It is undisputed ChemTrack contracted with L&M to prepare the containment 20 of soil on the barge and this fact was known at the time the complaint was filed. Tellingly, 21 ChemTrack’s initial disclosures state that L&M “negotiated the draft Time Charter with 22 Heko and has knowledge of the Time Charter negotiations, the loading of the Barge, the 23 reloading in Sand Point, and the Containers transported on the Barge.” Dkt. # 30-1. The 24 Ninth Circuit has made clear that motions seeking leave to amend pleadings “are not 25 reviewed favorably when the facts and the theory have been known to the party seeking 26 amendment since the inception of the cause of action.” Acri v. International Assoc. of 27 Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 781 F.2d 1393, 1398 (9th Cir. 1986). 1 ChemTrack avers that, “[t]here are many dynamics involved in the decision to bring 2 a third party complaint, such as costs and fees, evaluation of the likelihood of success of 3 the plaintiff’s claim, evaluation of the likelihood of success of the third party claim, 4 evaluation of jurisdictional issues, evaluation of the likelihood of success of the motions 5 necessary to add the third party, and consultations with clients.” Dkt. # 24 at 7. While that 6 may be, the time for this assessment is not two months before trial. Failing to heed signals 7 that not all the necessary parties may not have been named in the complaint does not 8 constitute diligence. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 610. In short, ChemTrack fails to establish 9 “good cause” for modifying the pretrial scheduling order. Accordingly, the Court denies 10 the motion and strikes as moot the motion seeking leave to file a third-party complaint. 11 IV. CONCLUSION 12 For the reasons above, the motion to modify the scheduling order is DENIED and 13 the Court STRIKES as moot the motion seeking leave to file a third-party complaint. 14 Dkt. ## 24, 26. 15 DATED this 14th day of November, 2019.

16 A 17

18 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27