1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 STEVEN CARSON, Case No. 19-cv-01551-JSC

9 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 10 v. MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

11 SEASPAN CORPORATION, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 25 Defendants. 12

13 14 Plaintiff Steven Carson filed this action in the Alameda County Superior Court against 15 Defendants CMA CGM (America) LLC, Seaspan Corporation, and Seaspan Ship Management 16 Ltd. alleging negligence and products liability claims after he was injured loading containers onto 17 a vessel owned by Defendants. Seaspan Corporation and Seaspan Ship Management Ltd. then 18 removed the action to this Court based on federal diversity jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 1.) The Court 19 thereafter granted Homeport Insurance Company, who paid Plaintiff’s workers’ compensation 20 benefits following the incident, leave to intervene. (Dkt. No. 20.) Plaintiff’s motion to amend the 21 complaint to add Cargotec Oyj, MacGregor Germany GmbH, Cargotec Holding, Inc., and 22 Cargotec Crane & Electrical Services, Inc. as additional defendants in this action is now pending 23 before the Court.1 (Dkt. No. 25.) None of the current Defendants has filed an opposition to the 24 motion. After carefully considering Plaintiff’s brief and the relevant legal authority, the Court 25 concludes that oral argument is unnecessary, see Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and GRANTS the unopposed 26 motion to amend. 27 1 DISCUSSION 2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) states that a party may amend a pleading before 3 trial “with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave” and that the “court should 4 freely give leave when justice so requires.” Though Rule 15(a) is “very liberal ... a district court 5 need not grant leave to amend where the amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is 6 sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue delay in litigation; or (4) is futile.” AmerisourceBergen 7 Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2006). Undue delay cannot alone justify 8 the denial of a motion to amend. Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.,

, 9 712–13 (9th Cir. 2001). The most important factor is prejudice to the opposing party. Zenith Radio 10 Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.,

, 330–31 (1971). A “determination should be 11 performed with all inferences in favor of granting the motion.” Griggs v. Pace Am. Group, Inc., 12

, 880 (9th Cir. 1999). 13 Here, Plaintiff seeks leave to amend the complaint to add Cargotec Oyj, MacGregor 14 Germany GmbH, Cargotec Holding, Inc., and Cargotec Crane & Electrical Services, Inc. because 15 recently produced documents indicate that these entities were involved in the manufacturing of the 16 container stacking cones involved in Plaintiff’s accident. (Dkt. No. 25-1 at ¶¶ 4-10.) Plaintiff 17 contends that amendment is necessary so that Plaintiff can fully litigate his claims, and 18 particularly, his product liability claim, and no party will be prejudiced by amendment. 19 The Court agrees that leave to amend is proper here. First, there is no evidence of material 20 prejudice to Defendants. See Owens,

(finding appellants suffered no prejudice 21 when appellee amended its answer because there was no delay in proceedings or required 22 additional discovery). Fact discovery does not close for over three months, and Defendants have 23 not identified any discovery that has been conducted that has to be redone. While the addition of 24 new defendants may require that the trial date or other deadlines be moved, Defendants have not 25 objected to such a possibility. 26 Second, there is no evidence of bad faith. See Owens,

(finding no evidence 27 of bad faith because Appellee offered “substantial competent evidence” as to why it delayed in 1 liability claim. 2 Third, there is no evidence of undue delay. Plaintiff received documents on July 29 and 3 September 3, 2019 from the Seaspan entities which indicated that a company named Macgregor 4 was the manufacturer of the container stacking cones involved in the accident. (Dkt. No. 25-1 at ¶ 5 4.) Upon further investigation, Plaintiff discovered that Macgregor appeared to be part of another 6 company called Cargotec which was headquartered in Finland under the name Cargotec Oja. (Id. 7 at ¶¶ 5-7.) Cargotec Oja appears to do business in the United States through Cargotec Holding, 8 Inc. a Delaware corporation, and Cargotec Crane & Electrical Services Inc., a Nevada corporation. 9 (Id. at ¶ 7.) Additional documents produced on September 3, 2019 indicate that there is a 10 Macgregor entity called MacGregor Germany GmbH. (Id. at ¶ 10.) Plaintiff thereafter sought the 11 parties’ stipulation to amendment, but they have not agreed, and he moved to amend before the 12 deadline to do so had passed. (Id. at ¶ 11.) See Owens, 244 F.3d at 712–13 (finding no 13 unreasonable delay because appellee moved to amend as soon as it became aware of an applicable 14 defense). 15 Finally, “a proposed amendment is futile only if no set of facts can be proved under the 16 amendment to the pleadings that would constitute a valid and sufficient claim or defense.” 17 Sweaney v. Ada County,

(9th Cir. 1997) (internal quotations omitted). Here, 18 there is nothing to suggest that amendment of Plaintiff’s complaint to add these defendants would 19 be futile. 20 Accordingly, the balance of factors supports granting Plaintiff leave to amend under Rule 21 15(a)(2). 22 CONCLUSION 23 For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to amend to add Cargotec Oyj, 24 MacGregor Germany GmbH, Cargotec Holding, Inc., and Cargotec Crane & Electrical Services, 25 Inc. as defendants is GRANTED. (Dkt. No. 25.) Plaintiff shall file the proposed amended 26 complaint within 3 business days. 27 // 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 Dated: December 13, 2019

4 ne JACYUELINE SCOTT CORLE 5 United States Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13

15

16

17

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