Wholesaler Equity Development Corporation v. Bargreen

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: March 23, 2022
• Docket: 2:20-cv-01095
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6

7 WHOLESALER EQUITY Case No. C20-1095RSM 8 DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 9 LEAVE TO AMEND Plaintiff, 10

11 v.

12 PETER BARGREEN and CROWN 13 DISTRIBUTING COMPANY OF EVERETT, INC., a Washington 14 corporation,

15 Defendants. 16

17 This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Peter Bargreen and Crown 18 Distributing Company of Everett, Inc. (“Crown of Everett”)’s Motion for Leave to Amend their 19 Answer to add counterclaims against Wedco and third-party claims against Wedco’s parent 20 company. Dkt. #69. This Motion was filed on March 3, 2022. The deadline set by the 21 22 Court’s Scheduling Order for amending the pleadings was October 13, 2020. Dkt. #27. This 23 deadline was never extended. On March 26, 2021, the parties stipulated to stay this case while 24 the liquidating trustee pursued a sale of Crown LLC. See Dkts. #36 and #37. On January 7, 25 2022, the parties requested the Court lift the stay and enter a new scheduling order. Dkt. #67. 26 Once a district court files a scheduling order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 27 28 Procedure 16 and the deadlines for amending a pleading or joining a party expire, a party’s motion to amend a pleading or join an additional party is governed by Rule 16, not Rule 15. 1 2 See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992). 3 A scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s 4 consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The decision to modify a scheduling order is within the 5 broad discretion of the district court. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 607. “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ 6 standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking amendment.” Id. at 609. If a 7 8 party has acted diligently yet still cannot reasonably meet the scheduling deadlines, the court 9 may allow modification of the schedule. Id. However, “if that party was not diligent, the 10 inquiry should end” and the motion to modify should not be granted. Id. Local Civil Rule 11 16(m) states that “this rule will be strictly enforced” in order to “accomplish effective pretrial 12 13 procedures and avoid wasting the time of the parties, counsel, and the court.” While prejudice 14 to the party opposing the modification may provide additional reasons for denying the motion, 15 it is not required to deny a motion to amend under Rule 16(b). Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 16 232 F.3d 1271, 1295 (9th Cir. 2000). 17 The Court has reviewed the briefing of the parties and the record and finds that 18 19 Defendants have been reasonably diligent in pursuing these claims given the unusual 20 circumstances of this case. At least some of the delay is due to a stipulated stay and uncertainty 21 about the sale. Further, the early state of discovery and the significant amount of time before 22 trial lead the Court to find that prejudice to Plaintiff will be minimal if the Court permits 23 amendment. It is possible Defendants could pursue these claims in a separate action if the 24 25 Court denied the instant relief. Permitting amendment therefore conserves judicial resources 26 and avoids wasting the time and resources of the parties. The Court is not convinced on this 27 limited briefing that Defendants’ proposed claims are futile. 28 Having considered the briefing from the parties and the remainder of the record, the 1 2 Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Amend their Answer, 3 Dkt. #69, is GRANTED. Defendants shall immediately file the Answer attached to their 4 Motion. 5 DATED this 23rd day of March, 2022. 6

7 8 A 9 10 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28