Innovative Solutions International Inc v. Houlihan Trading Co Inc

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Washington
DecidedJune 28, 2022
Docket2:22-cv-00296
StatusUnknown

This text of Innovative Solutions International Inc v. Houlihan Trading Co Inc (Innovative Solutions International Inc v. Houlihan Trading Co Inc) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Innovative Solutions International Inc v. Houlihan Trading Co Inc, (W.D. Wash. 2022).

Opinion

1 The Honorable John C. Coughenour 2

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS 10 INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Washington Case No. 2:22-cv-00296-JCC corporation, 11 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED Plaintiff, ORDER TO FILE SECOND AMENDED 12 COMPLAINT v. 13 HOULIHAN TRADING CO., INC., a 14 Florida corporation; BRIGHTON SALES AND MARKETING, LLC, an Arkansas 15 limited liability company; MARCUS TECHNOLOGIES LLC, a Texas limited 16 liability company; SHUMAKER INTERNATIONAL CORP., a Tennessee 17 corporation; COOK INTERNATIONAL TRADE & BROKERAGE, INC., a Florida 18 corporation; NORTH SOUTH FOODS GRP., INC., a Florida corporation; 19 HENLEY’S WHOLESALE MEATS, INC., an Arkansas corporation; PILGRIM’S 20 PRIDE CORP., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1–10, 21 Defendants. 22

23 The parties, through their undersigned counsel of record, agree to and stipulate as 24 follows: 25 1. On June 8, 2022, Plaintiff Innovative Solutions International, Inc. (“Plaintiff” 26 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO FILE SECOND 1 or “Innovative”) filed its First Amended Complaint against Defendants Houlihan Trading 2 Company, Inc., Marcus Technologies LLC, Brighton Sales and Marketing, LLC, Cook 3 International Trade & Brokerage, Inc., Shumaker International Corporation, North South 4 Foods Group, Inc., Henley’s Wholesale Meats, Inc., Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation, and Doe 5 Defendants 1–10. 6 2. Brighton Group, LLC had notice of the First Amended Complaint and its 7 counsel notified Plaintiff that “Brighton Group, LLC” rather than “Brighton Sales and 8 Marketing, LLC” is the name of the correct defendant in this action. Houlihan Trading 9 Company, Inc. and Henley’s Wholesale Meats, Inc. have appeared in this action and join this 10 Stipulation. 11 3. Plaintiff amends its First Amended Complaint to name “Brighton Group, 12 LLC” as a defendant instead of “Brighton Sales and Marketing, LLC.” 13 4. It is stipulated and agreed that the caption in the above-referenced case should 14 be amended as reflected in Exhibit A attached hereto. 15 5. It is further stipulated and agreed that, at the present time, and upon 16 information and belief, Brighton Sales and Marketing, LLC should not be party to this case 17 and Plaintiff is not aware of any claims against this entity at this time. 18 6. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that leave to amend a 19 complaint “shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The Ninth 20 Circuit has emphasized that “[r]ule 15’s policy of favoring amendments to pleadings should 21 be applied with ‘extreme liberality.’” DCD Programs, Ltd v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th 22 Cir. 1987); see also Bowles v. Read, 198 F.3d 752, 757-58 (9th Cir. 1999). 23 7. The undersigned parties agree that Plaintiff’s amendments to the First 24 Amended Complaint will not result in undue delay or in any prejudice to any party. 25 8. Pursuant to Local Rule 15, a copy of the proposed Second Amended 26 Complaint showing as redlines the changes made to the First Amended Complaint to create STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO FILE SECOND 1 the Second Amended Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties, by and through their 3 respective counsel, that Plaintiff should be granted leave to file the Second Amended 4 Complaint attached hereto as Exhibit A with changes accepted. 5 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 6 7 Dated: June 28, 2022

8 9 By: s/ Philip M. Guess By: s/ Daniel W. Rankin Philip M. Guess, WSBA #26765 Bennett J. Hansen, WSBA #24205 10 Madisyn M. Uekawa, WSBA #56953 Daniel W. Rankin, WSBA #49673 11 K&L GATES LLP PREG O’DONNELL & GILLETT PLLC 925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900 901 5th Ave., Suite 3400 12 Seattle, WA 98104 Seattle, WA 98164 Tel: (206) 623-7580 Phone: (206) 287-1775 13 Fax: (206) 623-7022 bhansen@pregodonnell.com philip.guess@klgates.com drankin@pregodonnell.com 14 madisyn.uekawa@klgates.com 15 Attorneys for Defendant Houlihan Trading Attorneys for Plaintiff Innovative Solutions Co., Inc. 16 International, Inc.

17 By: s/ Eliot M. Harris 18 Eliot M. Harris, WSBA # 36590 19 Gabrielle K. Lindquist, WSBA # 57177 WILLIAMS, KASTNER & GIBBS PLLC 20 601 Union Street, Suite 4100 Seattle, WA 98101-2380 21 Tel: (206) 628-6600 Fax: (206) 628-6611 22 eharris@williamskastner.com 23 glindquist@williamskastner.com

24 Attorneys for Defendant Henley’s Wholesale Meats, Inc. 25 26 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO FILE SECOND 1 ORDER 2 The Court having reviewed the foregoing Stipulation, and good cause appearing 3 therefore: 4 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted leave to amend to file its Second Amended 5 Complaint, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, with changes accepted. Plaintiff 6 7 shall file and serve its Second Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days of this Order 8 pursuant to LCR 15. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 DATED this 28th day of June 2022. 11 A 12 13 14 John C. Coughenour 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO FILE SECOND

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Innovative Solutions International Inc v. Houlihan Trading Co Inc, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/innovative-solutions-international-inc-v-houlihan-trading-co-inc-wawd-2022.