Global Commodities, Inc. v. Capital Distributors LLC
U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota
Global Commodities, Inc. v. Capital Distributors LLC
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Global Commodities, Inc., Case No. 24-cv-216 (JMB/DJF)
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
Capital Distributors LLC and Capital Imports,
LLC,
Defendants.
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Global Commodities, Inc’s Motion for Leave to
Amend Complaint and Deadline for Filing the Amended Complaint (“Motion to Amend”) (ECF
No. 35). Defendants oppose the Motion to Amend. (ECF No. 41.) The Court finds insufficient
good cause to extend the deadline to amend the pleadings past the deadline set in its Pretrial
Scheduling Order (ECF No. 24) under Rule 16(b)(4), and thus denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed a seven-count complaint in this matter on January 26, 2024 (“Complaint”)
(ECF No. 1). On March 4, 2024, Defendants moved to dismiss Counts V, VI, and VII of the
Complaint (“Motion to Dismiss”) (ECF No. 9). On April 18, 2024, the Court issued a Pretrial
Scheduling Order with a deadline for motions to amend the pleadings by August 15, 2024 (ECF
No. 24). On August 14, 2024, District Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan issued an Order granting Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss without prejudice (“Dismissal Order”) (ECF No. 33). Plaintiff did not seek an
extension of the deadline to amend the pleadings before it expired and did not file its Motion to
Amend until August 27, 2024 (ECF No. 35). In its proposed amended complaint, Plaintiff seeks to
remove Counts V and VII and expand on Count VI (Trade Dress Infringement) to address the issues
Judge Bryan identified in his Dismissal Order (“Proposed Amended Complaint”) (ECF No. 38-1).
Plaintiff states that “the [P]roposed Amended Complaint clarifies what the parties already know”
about its Trade Dress Infringement claim. (ECF No. 37 at 2.)
DISCUSSION
I. Legal Standard
A. Leave to Amend
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), leave to amend a pleading “shall be freely given when justice so
requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). But there is no absolute right to amend a pleading, and a motion to
amend may be denied based on a finding of “undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive, repeated
failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the nonmoving
party, or futility of the amendment.” Doe v. Cassel, 403 F.3d 986, 990-91(8th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). The decision whether to grant leave to amend is left to the sound discretion of the district court. Popoalii v. Corr. Med. Servs.,512 F.3d 488, 497
(8th Cir. 2008); Leftwich ex rel. Leftwich v. Cty. of Dakota,9 F.4th 966, 976
(8th Cir. 2021).
Additionally, “a motion for leave to amend filed outside the district court’s Rule 16(b)
scheduling order requires a showing of good cause.” Williams v. TESCO Servs., Inc., 719
F.3d 968, 977(8th Cir. 2013) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4)). “[A]pplication of Rule 16(b)’s good- cause standard is not optional.” Sherman v. Winco Fireworks, Inc.,532 F.3d 709, 716
(8th Cir. 2008). A court determines whether good cause exists by examining “the movant’s diligence in attempting to meet the [scheduling] order’s requirements.” Harris v. FedEx Nat’l LTL, Inc.,760 F.3d 780, 786
(8th Cir. 2014); see also Albright ex rel. Doe v. Mountain Home Sch. Dist.,926 F.3d 942, 951
(8th Cir. 2019) (“The primary measure of good cause is the movant’s diligence in attempting to meet deadlines.”). A movant may also establish good cause if it can show “a change in the law, newly discovered facts, or another significant changed circumstance that requires amendment of a party’s pleading.” Ellingsworth v. Vermeer Mfg. Co.,949 F.3d 1097, 1100
(8th Cir. 2020). The movant also must be able to show that, despite its diligence, it could not reasonably have asserted the proposed claims in a timely manner. Sherman,532 F.3d at 716
-17
II. Analysis
Plaintiff filed its Motion to Amend twelve days after the deadline established in the Pretrial
Scheduling Order. (See ECF Nos. 24, 35.) Plaintiff argues good cause exists to permit its untimely
filing because “it has been diligent in addressing the dismissal of Counts V, VI, and VII in the week
after Judge Bryan’s decision” when “the proposed Amended Complaint was sent to Defendants only
a week after Judge Bryan’s decision and 6 days after the date to bring a motion to amend the
pleadings.” (ECF No. 37 at 4.) Plaintiff appears to reference the date when it first proposed the
amendments to Defendants and does not explicitly address the fact that it filed its Motion to Amend
twelve days after the deadline. Plaintiff offers no explanation as to why it could not have filed a
motion to extend the deadline to amend its pleadings before Judge Bryan’s Dismissal, or even the
day after. Such motions are not lengthy or difficult to make and a single day is plenty of time to
complete this task. Moreover, Plaintiff concedes that its Proposed Amended Complaint “clarifies
what the parties already know” (ECF No. 3-2), thus admitting its proposed amendment is not based
on any change in law, newly discovered facts, or any other significant changed circumstances
requiring amendment. See Ellingsworth, 949 F.3d at1100. The Court therefore cannot conclude that
Plaintiff exercised sufficient diligence to comply with the Pretrial Scheduling Order. Because
Plaintiff has not established good cause to warrant its untimely Motion to Amend, the Court denies
the motion.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT Plaintiff Global Commodities, Inc’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and
Deadline for Filing the Amended Complaint (ECF No. [35]) is DENIED.
Dated: September 9, 2024 s/ Dulce J. Foster
DULCE J. FOSTER
United States Magistrate Judge Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Global Commodities, Inc., Case No. 24-cv-216 (JMB/DJF)
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
Capital Distributors LLC and Capital Imports,
LLC,
Defendants.
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Global Commodities, Inc’s Motion for Leave to
Amend Complaint and Deadline for Filing the Amended Complaint (“Motion to Amend”) (ECF
No. 35). Defendants oppose the Motion to Amend. (ECF No. 41.) The Court finds insufficient
good cause to extend the deadline to amend the pleadings past the deadline set in its Pretrial
Scheduling Order (ECF No. 24) under Rule 16(b)(4), and thus denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed a seven-count complaint in this matter on January 26, 2024 (“Complaint”)
(ECF No. 1). On March 4, 2024, Defendants moved to dismiss Counts V, VI, and VII of the
Complaint (“Motion to Dismiss”) (ECF No. 9). On April 18, 2024, the Court issued a Pretrial
Scheduling Order with a deadline for motions to amend the pleadings by August 15, 2024 (ECF
No. 24). On August 14, 2024, District Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan issued an Order granting Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss without prejudice (“Dismissal Order”) (ECF No. 33). Plaintiff did not seek an
extension of the deadline to amend the pleadings before it expired and did not file its Motion to
Amend until August 27, 2024 (ECF No. 35). In its proposed amended complaint, Plaintiff seeks to
remove Counts V and VII and expand on Count VI (Trade Dress Infringement) to address the issues
Judge Bryan identified in his Dismissal Order (“Proposed Amended Complaint”) (ECF No. 38-1).
Plaintiff states that “the [P]roposed Amended Complaint clarifies what the parties already know”
about its Trade Dress Infringement claim. (ECF No. 37 at 2.)
DISCUSSION
I. Legal Standard
A. Leave to Amend
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), leave to amend a pleading “shall be freely given when justice so
requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). But there is no absolute right to amend a pleading, and a motion to
amend may be denied based on a finding of “undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive, repeated
failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the nonmoving
party, or futility of the amendment.” Doe v. Cassel, 403 F.3d 986, 990-91(8th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). The decision whether to grant leave to amend is left to the sound discretion of the district court. Popoalii v. Corr. Med. Servs.,512 F.3d 488, 497
(8th Cir. 2008); Leftwich ex rel. Leftwich v. Cty. of Dakota,9 F.4th 966, 976
(8th Cir. 2021).
Additionally, “a motion for leave to amend filed outside the district court’s Rule 16(b)
scheduling order requires a showing of good cause.” Williams v. TESCO Servs., Inc., 719
F.3d 968, 977(8th Cir. 2013) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4)). “[A]pplication of Rule 16(b)’s good- cause standard is not optional.” Sherman v. Winco Fireworks, Inc.,532 F.3d 709, 716
(8th Cir. 2008). A court determines whether good cause exists by examining “the movant’s diligence in attempting to meet the [scheduling] order’s requirements.” Harris v. FedEx Nat’l LTL, Inc.,760 F.3d 780, 786
(8th Cir. 2014); see also Albright ex rel. Doe v. Mountain Home Sch. Dist.,926 F.3d 942, 951
(8th Cir. 2019) (“The primary measure of good cause is the movant’s diligence in attempting to meet deadlines.”). A movant may also establish good cause if it can show “a change in the law, newly discovered facts, or another significant changed circumstance that requires amendment of a party’s pleading.” Ellingsworth v. Vermeer Mfg. Co.,949 F.3d 1097, 1100
(8th Cir. 2020). The movant also must be able to show that, despite its diligence, it could not reasonably have asserted the proposed claims in a timely manner. Sherman,532 F.3d at 716
-17
II. Analysis
Plaintiff filed its Motion to Amend twelve days after the deadline established in the Pretrial
Scheduling Order. (See ECF Nos. 24, 35.) Plaintiff argues good cause exists to permit its untimely
filing because “it has been diligent in addressing the dismissal of Counts V, VI, and VII in the week
after Judge Bryan’s decision” when “the proposed Amended Complaint was sent to Defendants only
a week after Judge Bryan’s decision and 6 days after the date to bring a motion to amend the
pleadings.” (ECF No. 37 at 4.) Plaintiff appears to reference the date when it first proposed the
amendments to Defendants and does not explicitly address the fact that it filed its Motion to Amend
twelve days after the deadline. Plaintiff offers no explanation as to why it could not have filed a
motion to extend the deadline to amend its pleadings before Judge Bryan’s Dismissal, or even the
day after. Such motions are not lengthy or difficult to make and a single day is plenty of time to
complete this task. Moreover, Plaintiff concedes that its Proposed Amended Complaint “clarifies
what the parties already know” (ECF No. 3-2), thus admitting its proposed amendment is not based
on any change in law, newly discovered facts, or any other significant changed circumstances
requiring amendment. See Ellingsworth, 949 F.3d at1100. The Court therefore cannot conclude that
Plaintiff exercised sufficient diligence to comply with the Pretrial Scheduling Order. Because
Plaintiff has not established good cause to warrant its untimely Motion to Amend, the Court denies
the motion.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT Plaintiff Global Commodities, Inc’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and
Deadline for Filing the Amended Complaint (ECF No. [35]) is DENIED.
Dated: September 9, 2024 s/ Dulce J. Foster
DULCE J. FOSTER
United States Magistrate Judge Reference
- Status
- Unknown