Cathay Logistics, LLC et al v. Gerber Plumbing Fixture, LLC, No. 2:2015cv02926 - Document 22 (C.D. Cal. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: Gerber shall file its amended complaint within fourteen days of this Order. It is also ORDERED that this case is consolidated with Cathay Log istics, LLC and Sinofreight, LLC d/b/a/ SB Freight v. Gerber Plumbing Fixtures, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-02926-ODW (GJS), for all purposes including trial. Case No. 2:15-cv-02926-ODW (GJS) is designated as the LEAD CASE. ALL documents related to either case that need to be filed with the Court should be filed in ONLY ON THE LEAD CASE. (lc). Modified on 11/17/2015 (lc). Modified on 11/17/2015 (lc).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Cathay Logistics, LLC et al v. Gerber Plumbing Fixture, LLC Doc. 22 O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 United States District Court Central District of California 8 9 10 11 GERBER PLUMBING FIXTURES, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-04146-ODW(RAO) Plaintiff, 12 13 [c/w: 2:15-cv-02926-ODW(GJS)] v. 14 AMERIFREIGHT, INC., dba LOGISTICS ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 15 TEAM; 19201 REYES, LLC, Defendants. 16 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE [51 & 52] 17 18 19 20 CATHAY LOGISTICS, LLC; 21 SINOFREIGHT, LLC dba SB FREIGHT, Plaintiffs, 22 23 24 25 v. GERBER PLUMBING FIXTURES, LLC, Defendant. 26 27 28 Dockets.Justia.com I. INTRODUCTION 1 2 Plaintiff Gerber Plumbing Fixtures, LLC (“Gerber”) moves for leave to file a 3 Second Amended Complaint and to consolidate this matter with another also pending 4 before this Court. Gerber seeks to amend its Complaint to add a cause of action for 5 conspiracy to commit conversion, and to name two additional defendants, Cathay 6 Logistics, LLC and Sinofreight, LLC, that allegedly took part in the conspiracy. (ECF 7 No. 52.) Gerber also seeks to consolidate this case with another case filed by several 8 of these same defendants. (ECF No. 51.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court 9 GRANTS Gerber’s Motions. 1 (ECF Nos. 51, 52.) II. BACKGROUND 10 Gerber is an Illinois-based company that manufactures plumbing equipment. 11 12 (First Am. Compl. (FAC) ¶ 9, ECF No. 30.) Defendant Amerifreight, Inc. dba 13 Logistics Team (“Logistics Team”) is a California-based company that provides 14 warehouse and logistics services. (Id. ¶¶ 2, 16.) On January 26, 2012, Gerber and 15 Logistics Team entered into a five-year contract under which Logistics Team would 16 provide these services to Gerber. (Id. ¶¶ 16, 17.) Recently, Logistics Team arranged 17 for approximately $7.6 million of Gerber’s products to be stored at a warehouse 18 owned by Defendant 19201 Reyes, LLC (“Reyes”). (Id. ¶¶ 3, 20, 21.) 19 Separately, Gerber began working with Cathay Logistics, LLC (“Cathay”) and 20 Sinofreight, LLC dba SB Freight (“SB Freight”), who also provided logistical and 21 transportation services to Gerber. (Id. ¶¶ 25–27.) Gerber alleges that Cathay and SB 22 Freight are owned and operated by the same individuals who own and operate 23 Logistics Team. (Id. ¶ 25.) On March 23, 2015, Cathay brought suit against Gerber 24 for approximately $1 million on an open book account for shipping services. (Id. ¶ 25 28.) Gerber disputes the amount, and alleges that Cathay and SB Freight failed to 26 adequately perform their services to Gerber. (Id.) 27 1 28 After considering the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the Motion, the Court deems the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15. 2 1 Seven days later, Logistics Team informed Gerber that it was in the process of 2 terminating its lease with Reyes due to Gerber’s alleged nonpayment and bad faith 3 under their contract, and that Gerber needed to remove its products from the Reyes 4 facility by June 30, 2015 otherwise Logistics Team would be forced to move them at 5 Gerber’s expense. (Id. ¶ 33.) Gerber responded that it was current on all charges 6 from Logistics Team, and denied that it had acted in bad faith. (Id. ¶¶ 34, 35.) 7 However, Gerber nevertheless agreed to remove its inventory. (Id. ¶ 34.) Gerber also 8 inquired whether Logistics Team would pay for the relocation of Gerber’s inventory 9 pursuant to the terms of their contract. (Id. ¶ 35.) Logistics Team responded by 10 reiterating its previous assertion that Gerber was to either move its inventory or have it 11 moved by Logistics Team at Gerber’s cost. (Id. ¶ 36.) The following month, Gerber provided Logistics Team with its inventory and 12 13 move-out process. (Id. ¶¶ 38, 39.) In the meantime, they continued to discuss the 14 merits of each other’s alleged breach of the contract. (Id. ¶¶ 40–44.) On June 1, 15 2015, Logistics Team told Gerber that any resolution would be conditioned on, at 16 minimum, Gerber repaying the $1 million that it allegedly owed to Cathay/SB Freight. 17 (Id. ¶¶ 28, 42, 43.) Logistics Team also refused to allow Gerber to conduct its move- 18 out until this debt with Cathay/SB Freight was settled. (Id. ¶ 47.) The next day, 19 Gerber filed this action against Logistics Team. (ECF No. 1.) 20 On September 4, 2015, Gerber filed its Motion for Leave to File Second 21 Amended Complaint and Motion to Consolidate Related Cases. (ECF Nos. 51, 52.) 22 Logistics Team and Reyes timely opposed both motions, and Gerber timely replied. 23 (ECF Nos. 57–62.) Both Motions are now before the Court for consideration. III. 24 25 A. DISCUSSION Motion for Leave to Amend 26 A party may move for leave to amend its pleading, and “[t]he court should 27 freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “Four factors are 28 commonly used to determine the propriety of a motion for leave to amend. These are: 3 1 bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of amendment.” 2 DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987) (citations 3 omitted). These factors should be analyzed with “extreme liberality” toward allowing 4 amendments. United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981). 5 Gerber seeks leave to amend to add Cathay and SB Freight as defendants in this 6 action, and all of the foregoing factors weigh in favor of granting Gerber’s request. 7 There is no indication that Gerber is acting in bad faith by bringing this motion. There 8 is also no undue delay as Gerber brought this motion approximately three months after 9 suit was filed, and well within the deadline set by the court to amend its pleading. The 10 current defendants will not be prejudiced because the allegations against them will be 11 largely unchanged in the amended pleading. Neither will the new parties suffer any 12 undue prejudice given that this matter is still within the relatively early stages of the 13 litigation, and the fact that they are alleged to be alter-egos of the current defendants. 14 And finally, the opposing parties have not pointed to any reason why the claims 15 against the new parties would necessarily fail, and thus there is no issue with respect 16 to the futility of amendment. 17 Logistics Team makes several arguments in opposition to the motion, none of 18 which are persuasive. 19 Complaint will violate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13(a). (Opp’n 8.) That Rule 20 provides in part: 21 22 23 24 25 First, Logistics Team argues that allowing an amended [a] pleading must state as a counterclaim any claim that—at the time of its service—the pleader has against an opposing party if the claim: (A) arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim; and (B) does not require adding another party over whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 13(a). 26 Gerber responds that its claims against Cathay and SB Freight are not 27 compulsory counterclaims because they did not arise at the time of service, as required 28 by Rule 13(a). (Reply 10, 11.) Specifically, Gerber argues that it answered Cathay 4 1 and SB Freight’s Complaint on April 29, 2015, and that it was not until June 2, 2015 2 that Logistics Team, Cathay, and SB Freight acted to shut down the Reyes facility. Id. 3 The Court agrees with Gerber. Gerber did not file suit against Logistics Team until 4 Logistics Team essentially told Gerber that they intended to hold their property 5 hostage, which occurred on June 2, 2015. 6 compulsory counterclaim on April 29, 2015. Moreover, it is not clear that Gerber was 7 even aware of the underlying connection between the defendants on April 29, 2015. 8 Thus, Gerber was not required to file this as a compulsory counterclaim at the time it 9 filed its Answer in the other action. Thus, Defendants did not have a 10 Moreover, even if this could be construed as a counterclaim that should have 11 been brought in the other action, Gerber could have moved for leave to add such a 12 counterclaim in that action, which the Court would still have analyzed under Rule 13 15(a)(2) anyway. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 advisory committee’s notes (“Abrogation of 14 Rule 13(f) establishes Rule 15 as the sole rule governing amendment of a pleading to 15 add a counterclaim.”). Thus, whether the Court grants leave to amend in this action 16 versus the Cathay action makes no difference—particularly as the Court has now 17 consolidated the two actions. 18 Logistics Team’s remaining arguments are even more specious. They first 19 argue that Gerber is impermissibly seeking to split claims involving the same parties. 20 (Opp’n 9.) Generally, “a party seeking to enforce a claim legally or equitably must 21 present to the court . . . all the grounds upon which he expects a judgment in his favor. 22 He is not at liberty to split up his demand, and prosecute it by piecemeal, or present 23 only a portion of the grounds upon which special relief is sought, and leave the rest to 24 be presented in a second suit, if the first fail.” The Haytian Republic, 154 U.S. 118, 25 125 (1894). The Supreme Court reasoned that “[t]here would be no end to litigation if 26 such a practice were permissible.” Id. 27 Gerber is not seeking to split any claims; on the contrary, it is seeking to add 28 parties to one lawsuit and consolidate actions to increase efficiency in resolving the 5 1 dispute. If Logistics Team was really so concerned about claim-splitting, it would not 2 have opposed Gerber’s concurrent motion to consolidate. See RA Med. Sys., Inc. v. 3 PhotoMedex, Inc., 373 F. App’x 784, 787 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that a defendant’s 4 opposition to a motion to consolidate constitutes an acceptance to claims splitting). 5 Logistics Team also argues that Gerber has not shown “good cause” for the 6 amendment. (Opp’n 11.) This argument is curious. What part of Rule 15(a)(2) 7 requires “good cause” to amend a pleading? What part of that rule requires a movant 8 to produce a declaration describing the moving party’s “investigation” of their claims, 9 or precludes a party from amending its pleading because of statements made in their 10 Joint Report? And for that matter, where in the Joint Report did Gerber even say that 11 it did not intend to add new parties to its pleading? 12 Suffice to say, Gerber’s Motion is granted. Logistics Team is also reminded 13 that advancing frivolous arguments unsupported by law is grounds for sanctions.2 14 Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2). 15 B. Motion to Consolidate 16 Gerber moves to consolidate this case with Cathay Logistics, LLC et al. v. 17 Gerber Plumbing Fixtures, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-02926-ODW (GJS). A district 18 court has broad discretion to consolidate cases that involve a common question of law 19 or fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2); Inv’rs Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Cent. 20 Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989). 21 consolidate, a court weighs the interest of judicial convenience against the potential 22 for delay, confusion, and prejudice caused by consolidation.” Id. “To determine whether to 23 Gerber argues, and the Court agrees, that the respective complaints involve 24 common issues of law and fact, and that the two actions share key witnesses and 25 evidence. (Mot. 7–8.) Gerber alleges that the defendants in the two actions are 26 2 27 28 Reyes makes substantially similar arguments as Logistics Team in opposition to Gerber’s Motion for Leave to Amend. The Court is not persuaded by Reyes’ arguments, and does not find it necessary to separately address those arguments. 6 1 essentially alter-egos of each other (or at the very least are acting in concert with each 2 other), and therefore involve the same parties. Both actions also substantially relate to 3 and involve the June 2015 lockout of Gerber from the warehouse. Moreover, there is 4 no delay or prejudice caused by consolidation because these actions are both still in 5 the early stages of litigation. Consolidation will not result in any additional confusion 6 above and beyond the confusion inherent in the facts of the case. Thus, consolidation 7 of the cases is appropriate. 3 8 Logistics Team opposes Gerber’s Motion on several grounds, none of which are 9 persuasive. First, Logistics Team argues that Gerber should not be permitted to 10 consolidate the cases after taking affirmative steps to separate them. (Opp’n 5.) 11 Specifically, it notes that Gerber filed the present action with full knowledge of the 12 Cathay action, and thereby manifested a willingness to litigate the actions separately. 13 (Opp’n 5.) First, as noted above, this suit could not have been filed at the time of 14 Cathay’s claim against Gerber. It is unknown if Gerber was even aware of the 15 underlying relationship between the defendants at the time of its filing against 16 Logistics Team and Reyes. In the Joint Report filed in the related (Cathay) action, 17 Gerber specifically notes that investigation is continuing with regard to the discovery 18 of additional related parties. Under these circumstances, it does not appear that 19 Gerber took affirmative steps to separate the two actions. Second, Logistics Team 20 cites no authority for its contention that such conduct (even if true) precludes 21 consolidation. 22 Logistics Team next argues that because the amended pleading is more properly 23 a compulsory counterclaim in the Cathay action, the Court should not consolidate the 24 two actions, but should instead dismiss this action and force Gerber to move to amend 25 in the Cathay action. (Opp’n 7.) This is beyond absurd. First, this is not a motion to 26 dismiss, and thus there is no basis on which to dismiss this action. Second, as 27 3 28 The Court again does not find it necessary to separately address Reyes’ arguments in opposition to this Motion, suffice to say that the Court is not persuaded by its arguments. 7 1 Logistics Team itself points out, the point of prohibiting compulsory counterclaims 2 from being asserted in a different action is to increase efficiency by resolving all 3 disputes arising out of common matters in a single lawsuit. (Id.) But, as discussed 4 above, Gerber is not trying to separate the claims into different lawsuits—Gerber is 5 trying to consolidate all claims into one lawsuit. How does this not achieve efficiency 6 and uniformity? If anything, it is Logistics Team that is attempting to split claims, 7 decrease efficiency, and increase costs by trying to keep these matters separate. 8 Logistics Team next argues that Gerber has not shown good cause for the 9 Motion. (Opp’n 7.) But, like Rule 15, nothing in Rule 42(a)(2) requires a separate 10 showing of “good cause” to consolidate. 11 Lastly, Logistics Team argues that consolidation is not necessary for a global 12 settlement conference, as the parties have previously participated in a global 13 settlement conference (albeit an unsuccessful one). (Opp’n 8.) While consolidation 14 may not be necessary to achieve this, it will certainly not hinder a global resolution, 15 and thus this does not weigh against consolidation. IV. 16 CONCLUSION 17 For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS Gerber’s motions for 18 leave to amend and to consolidate related cases. (ECF Nos. 51 and 52.) Gerber shall 19 file its amended complaint within fourteen days of this Order. It is also ORDERED 20 that this case is consolidated with Cathay Logistics, LLC and Sinofreight, LLC d/b/a/ 21 SB Freight v. Gerber Plumbing Fixtures, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-02926-ODW (GJS), 22 for all purposes including trial. Case No. 2:15-cv-02926-ODW (GJS) is designated as 23 the lead case. All documents related to either case that need to be filed with the Court 24 should be filed in only the lead case. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 8 1 The Court also notes that virtually all of Logistics Team’s arguments in 2 opposition to these Motions are frivolous, and appear to have been advanced for the 3 sole purpose of delay and to increase the cost of litigation. 4 continues to engage in such conduct, the Court will not hesitate to impose sanctions. If Logistics Team 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 November 16, 2015 8 9 10 ____________________________________ OTIS D. WRIGHT, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
