DK Fab Inc v. Shinn & Son Inc

1 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT 2 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Sep 04, 2024 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON DK FAB, INC., an Oregon corporation, 10 Plaintiff, No. 1:24-CV-03042-SAB 11 v. SHINN & SON, INC., a Washington ORDER GRANTING corporation; and SATUS CREEK FARMS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LLC, a Washington limited liability LEAVE TO FILE FIRST company, AMENDED ANSWER AND 16 Defendants. COUNTERCLAIMS 18 Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File First Amended Answer and Counterclaims, ECF No. 19. Plaintiff is represented by Brendan Monahan, Claire Taylor, and Marthy Hernandez. Defendants are represented by Rhys Farren and Suzanne Daigle. The motion was considered without oral argument.

23 The Court reviewed the briefs and caselaw, and grants Defendants’ motion.

24 BACKGROUND 25 This case was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington on March 20, 2024 based on 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff alleges several Washington State law claims, including for (1) breach of contract by Defendant Satus Creek Farms; (2) breach of contract by Defendant Shinn & Son; (3) breach of contract by both Defendants; (4) breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing by both Defendants; (5) for accounts stated as to both Defendants; and (6) unjust enrichment by both Defendants. Plaintiff seeks $769,817.67; compensatory, consequential, and reliance damages; and costs and fees.

5 Defendants filed counterclaims for (1) rejection or revocation of acceptance; (2) breach of contract; (3) breach of warranty; and (4) misrepresentation.

7 Defendant now seeks to amend their Answer and Counterclaims to add new counterclaims and clarify their answer.

9 MOTION STANDARD 10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) provides that a party may amend its pleading “once as a matter of course,” and may do so in all other cases “only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Amendments to pleadings are “applied with extreme liberality.” Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., , 712 (9th Cir. 2001).

16 Courts consider five factors when deciding whether to grant leave to amend: (1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) previous amendments, and (5) futility of the amendment. Forman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); see also United States v. Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir. 2011). “[T]he court must grant all inferences in favor of allowing amendment.” Griggs v. Pace Am. Gp., Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999).

22 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 23 Defendants seek for the first time to amend their Answer and Counterclaims to clarify their answers with regards to the August 2022 agreement on who signed the agreement in question and add counterclaims, based on new discovery. The new counterclaim is for unpaid rent and other goods and services. They argue the amendment will not result in prejudice or undue delay and is not made in bad faith nor is futile because the case is still in early stages and the amendments rely on recent information revealed in discovery.

Plaintiff opposes the Motion because it argues Defendants are trying to avoid Plaintiff's pending Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, ECF No. 17, the new claims do not change the outcome of the case, and Defendants had the 5|| information from discovery already in their possession.

Discovery in this case does not close until December 2024 and trial is set for May 2025. Defendants state the amendment is necessary to clarify counterclaims and damages. Given the liberal standard for amendment pursuant to Rule 15(a), especially upon first request, and finding no prejudice, undue delay, bad faith, or futility, the Court grants Defendants’ Motion. See Forman, 371 U.S. at 182.

11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 12 1. Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File First Amended Answer and Counterclaims, ECF No. 19, is GRANTED.

14 2. Defendants shall file their Amended Answer and Counterclaims on or 15|| before September 13, 2024.

16 3. Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, ECF No. 17, is DISMISSED with leave to renew.

18 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is hereby directed to enter this Order and to provide copies to counsel.

20 DATED this 4th day of September 2024. hl Secon Stanley A. Bastian Chief United States District Judge ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE TIDE) ARATAIAY ANCOWUrD AAT ANTATITYrheT 4