Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

GENERAL EMPLOYEES TRUST FUND v. HERMES, 14-cv-04054 NC. (2015)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20150224995 Visitors: 14
Filed: Feb. 23, 2015
Latest Update: Feb. 23, 2015
Summary: ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD Re: Dkt. No. 36 NATHANAEL M. COUSINS, Magistrate Judge. Pending before the Court is petitioners' motion for leave to amend their petition to confirm arbitration award to name an additional respondent. Dkt. No. 36. The Court finds the motion suitable for resolution without oral argument, see Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and GRANTS the motion for the reasons set forth below. This is an action brought by petitio
More

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD Re: Dkt. No. 36

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS, Magistrate Judge.

Pending before the Court is petitioners' motion for leave to amend their petition to confirm arbitration award to name an additional respondent. Dkt. No. 36. The Court finds the motion suitable for resolution without oral argument, see Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and GRANTS the motion for the reasons set forth below.

This is an action brought by petitioners General Employees Trust Fund and Board of Trustees of General Employees Trust Fund to enforce an arbitration award against respondent Yul Hermes on an alter ego theory. Dkt. No. 1. The original petition alleges that American Empire Building Maintenance Corporation ("Employer") has failed and refused to comply with an arbitration award and is, therefore, in breach of collective bargaining agreements. Id. ¶¶ 37-39. The petition alleges that, on February 3, 2014, the Employer filed a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy petition. Id. ¶ 42. The bankruptcy case was closed on March 7, 2014. Dkt. No. 36-2. Petitioners filed this lawsuit on September 5, 2014, to confirm the arbitration award against respondent Yul Hermes, the President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and Director of the Employer, on an alter ego theory of liability. Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 8, 44-57. The original petition did not seek to enforce the arbitration award against the Employer. Id. ¶ 43. Petitioners now request leave of Court, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), to file a first amended petition to confirm arbitration award that will add the Employer, the party to the arbitration at issue, as an additional respondent.

The motion for leave to amend was originally filed on January 22, and subsequently refiled on January 30. Dkt. Nos. 33, 36. The deadline to amend pleadings and add new parties previously set by the Court is January 30, 2015. Dkt. No. 31. Respondent opposes the motion primarily on the grounds that petitioners failed to seek the amendment within a reasonable time and that respondent will be prejudiced if the amendment is allowed under the current case schedule. Dkt. No. 43.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides generally that leave to amend the pleadings before trial should be given freely "when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). "This policy is `to be applied with extreme liberality.'" Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). Under this rule, courts generally consider five factors when deciding whether to grant leave to amend: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint. Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). "Not all of the factors merit equal weight. . . . it is the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight." Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052 (citing DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 185 (9th Cir. 1987)). "[D]elay, by itself, is insufficient to justify denial of leave to amend." DCD Programs, 833 F.2d 183 at 186 (citations omitted). Moreover, "[t]he party opposing amendment bears the burden of showing prejudice." Id. at 187.

The Court finds that petitioners' motion for leave to amend is timely. The Court further finds that the proposed amendment is not futile, was not made in bad faith or after undue delay, and will not cause defendant to suffer prejudice. Accordingly, the motion for leave to amend is GRANTED.

The Court will hold a further case management conference on Marcch 3, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom A, 15th Floor, U.S. Districct Court, 4500 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. At the conference, the Court wwill addresss the impact of the amendment on the case schedule and whether any alterations off the schedule are appropriate. The parties must meet and confer in advance of the conference and file jointly their proposal(s) regarding any amendment to the case schedule by 12:00 p.m. on March 2, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer