Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01146/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01146-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332fr Diversity-Fraud

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RALPH A. HUNTZINGER, on Behalf

of Himself and All Others Similarly

Situated,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 15cv1146-WQH-AGS

ORDER

v.

AQUA LUNG AMERICA, INC.,

Defendant.

AQUA LUNG AMERICA, INC.,

Third Party Plaintiff,

v.

SUUNTO OY

Third Party Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matters before the Court are the Motion for Leave to File Second Amended

Class Action Complaint Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 15(a)(2) (ECF No. 79) and the Motion to

File Conditionally Under Seal Exhibits A and B to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File

Second Amended Class Action Complaint Pursuant to L.R. 79.2 (ECF No. 77). 

I. Background

On May 21, 2015, Plaintiff Ralph A. Huntzinger filed a class action complaint 

alleging the following causes of action against Defendant Aqua Lung America, Inc.

- 1 - 15cv1146-WQH-AGS

Case 3:15-cv-01146-WQH-AGS Document 111 Filed 06/01/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(“Aqua Lung”): (1) violation of Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Civil Code

§ 1750 et seq.; (2) violation of the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Business and

Professions Code § 17200 et seq.; and (3) breach of implied warranty. (ECF No. 1). 

After Aqua Lung filed a motion to dismiss the complaint (ECF No. 7), the Court

dismissed the breach of implied warranty claim and denied the motion in all other

respects. (ECF No. 22). 

On December 29, 2015, Aqua Lung and Huntzinger filed a joint motion

requesting leave to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 24). The Court granted the

motion and Huntzinger filed the first amended class action complaint alleging the same

three causes of action against Aqua Lung. (ECF Nos. 25, 26). On January 21, 2016,

Aqua Lung filed an Answer. (ECF No. 28). 

On August 2, 2016, Aqua Lung filed a third party complaint against third party

Defendant Suunto Oy. (ECF No. 45). On December 6, 2016, Suunto Oy filed an

answer to the third party complaint. (ECF No. 61). 

On March 13, 2017, Huntzinger filed the motion for leave to file a second

amended complaint which seeks to add Eric Bush as an additional plaintiff and

proposed class representative and Suunto Oy as a defendant. (ECF No. 79). On April

3, 2017, Aqua Lung filed a non-opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 88). On April 3,

2017, Suunto Oy filed a response in opposition. (ECF No. 89). On April 10, 2017,

Huntzinger filed a reply. (ECF No. 90). 

On March 13, 2013, Huntzinger also filed a motion to file documents under seal

in support of the motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. (ECF No. 77).

II. Motion For Leave to File Second Amended Class Action Complaint 

Huntzinger seeks leave to file the second amended complaint adding Eric Bush

as a plaintiff and proposed class representative and Suunto Oy as a defendant pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. (ECF Nos. 79-1, 90). Huntzinger contends there

has been no undue delay in moving to amend the complaint. Huntzinger contends that

he has been diligently reviewing discovery produced by Aqua Lung and vetting

- 2 - 15cv1146-WQH-AGS

Case 3:15-cv-01146-WQH-AGS Document 111 Filed 06/01/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

potential plaintiffs to add or drop from the complaint to ensure that amendment was

practical. Huntzinger contends that he moved to assert claims directly against Suunto

Oy as soon as reasonably practical after developing sufficient facts to support personal

jurisdiction. Huntzinger contends that his motion is made in good faith to ensure

representation of the class and the adequacy of the class representative. Huntzinger

contends that amendment would not prejudice Aqua Lung or Suunto Oy because the

proposed second amended complaint does not add any new claims or causes of action

and is based upon facts and general allegations previously asserted against Aqua Lung.

Huntzinger contends that amendment will not impact discovery.1

 Huntzinger contends

that Suunto Oy has been aware of this litigation since November 2016 and has actively

participated in discovery. Huntzinger contends that good cause exists because

amendment will promote judicial economy. Huntzinger contends that the motion

should be granted based on Aqua Lung’s non-opposition because Aqua Lung is the only

opposing party currently in this action. Huntzinger contends that the proposed second

amended complaint sufficiently alleges Article III standing and states claims upon

which relief can be granted. 

Aqua Lung filed a notice of non-opposition to the motion stating that it does not

oppose the motion for leave to file a second amended class action complaint. (ECF No.

88). 

Suunto Oy filed a response in opposition requesting that the motion to file a

second amended complaint be denied with prejudice. (ECF No. 89 at 7). Suunto Oy

contends that the motion should be denied because amendment is futile and the motion

is brought in bad faith. Suunto Oy contends amendment is futile because the proposed

second amended complaint would be subject to dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). 

Suunto Oy contends that both Huntzinger and Bush lack standing to proceed with their

1

 On May 2, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order striking the dates in the Amended Scheduling Order and requiring parties to contact the Magistrate Judge’s chambers within three days of a decision on the instant motion to amend. (ECF No. 109). 

- 3 - 15cv1146-WQH-AGS

Case 3:15-cv-01146-WQH-AGS Document 111 Filed 06/01/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

claims and that their claims are otherwise barred. Suunto Oy contends that the CLRA

and UCL claims fail because plaintiffs do not sufficiently allege a legal injury and do

not allege that the plaintiffs read and relied upon any specific representation. Suunto

Oy contends that Bush’s claims in the second amended complaint are time-barred. 

Suunto Oy contends that the implied warranty claims in the proposed second amended

complaint fail because Huntzinger and Bush do not stand in privity with Defendants. 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 mandates that leave to amend “be freely given

when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “This policy is to be applied with

extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th

Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted). In Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962), the Supreme

Court offered several factors for district courts to consider in deciding whether to grant

a motion to amend under Rule 15(a):

In the absence of any apparent or declared reason – such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to

the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of

amendment, etc. – the leave sought should, as the rules require, be “freely given.” Foman, 371 U.S. at 182; see also Smith v. Pac. Prop. Dev. Co., 358 F.3d 1097, 1101

(9th Cir. 2004). “Not all of the [Foman] factors merit equal weight. As this circuit and

others have held, it is the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries

the greatest weight.” Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052 (citations omitted). “The

party opposing amendment bears the burden of showing prejudice.” DCD Programs,

Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987). “Absent prejudice, or a strong

showing of any of the remaining Foman factors, there exists a presumption under Rule

15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052.

Aqua Lung does not oppose the motion for leave to file the second amended

complaint. However, Suunto Oy opposes the motion on the grounds that amendment

would be futile. The Court concludes that Suunto Oy has not made a sufficiently strong

showing of the Foman factors to overcome the presumption of Rule 15(a) in favor of

granting leave to amend. See Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. Suunto Oy

- 4 - 15cv1146-WQH-AGS

Case 3:15-cv-01146-WQH-AGS Document 111 Filed 06/01/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

challenges the merits of the proposed second complaint by contending that the plaintiffs

lack standing and fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court will

defer consideration of any challenge to the merits of the proposed second amended

complaint until after the amended pleading is filed. See Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v.

Toshiba Corp., No. C-04-4708, 2006 WL 3093812, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2006) (“In

view of Rule 15(a)’s permissive standard, courts ordinarily defer consideration of

challenges to the merits of a proposed amended pleading until after leave to amend is

granted and the amended pleading is filed.”).

III. Motion To File Conditionally Under Seal Exhibits A and B to Plaintiff’s

Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Class Action Complaint 

Huntzinger additionally moves the Court for leave to file Exhibits A and B to the

motion for leave to file the second amended complaint under seal. (ECF No. 77). 

Exhibit A is the proposed second amended complaint and Exhibit B is the compare

version of the proposed second amended complaint. (ECF No. 78). Huntzinger

contends that pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order entered by the Court on June

29, 2016, 

Suunto Oy and Aqua Lung have designated certain information and documents produced during discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL” such that

Plaintiff is required to submit them under seal pending a determination by the Court as to whether they are sealable. The amendments in the

proposed SAC include information obtained from documents that were

designated “CONFIDENTIAL.”

Pursuant to the Protective Order, Suunto and Aqua Lung, as the Designating Parties, bear the burden of establishing the confidentiality of all such information, documents, materials, or items.

(ECF No. 77 at 2). The docket reflects that Suunto Oy and Aqua Lung have not filed

any response to this motion. 

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public

records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City

and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner

Commc’ns., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Except for documents that are

- 5 - 15cv1146-WQH-AGS

Case 3:15-cv-01146-WQH-AGS Document 111 Filed 06/01/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

traditionally kept secret, there is “a strong presumption in favor of access to court

records.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003);

see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79. “A party seeking to seal a judicial record

then bears the burden of overcoming this strong presumption by meeting the compelling

reasons standard. That is, the party must articulate compelling reasons supported by

specific factual findings ... that outweigh the general history of access and public

policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial

process.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (citations and quotation marks omitted). 

The presumed right to access to court proceedings and documents can be overcome

“only by an overriding right or interest ‘based on findings that closure is essential to

preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.’” Oregonian

Publ’g Co. v. United States District Court, 920 F.2d 1462, 1465 (9th Cir. 1990)

(quoting Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 446 U.S. 501, 510 (1985)).

Huntzinger asserts that information contained in Exhibits A and B has been

designated as confidential by Aqua Lung and Suunto Oy pursuant to the Stipulated

Protective Order. Huntzinger asserts that he is obligated to submit the exhibits under

seal pending a determination by the Court as to whether they are sealable. The Court

finds that compelling reasons exist at this stage in the proceedings to allow Exhibits A

and B to be filed under seal for the limited purpose of the Court’s consideration of the

motion for leave to file the second amended class action complaint. 

IV. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Motion to File Conditionally Under Seal

Exhibits A and B to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Class Action

Complaint filed by Plaintiff Ralph A. Huntzinger is GRANTED. (ECF No. 77). The

Clerk of Court shall filed Exhibits A and B (ECF No. 78) conditionally under seal. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File Second Amended

Class Action Complaint filed by Plaintiff Ralph A. Huntzinger is GRANTED. (ECF

No. 79). This Order does not constitute leave to file the second amended complaint

- 6 - 15cv1146-WQH-AGS

Case 3:15-cv-01146-WQH-AGS Document 111 Filed 06/01/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

under seal. Plaintiffs shall file the second amended class action complaint and/or any

motion requesting to file any portion of the second amended class action complaint

under seal on or by June 16, 2017. 

DATED: June 1, 2017

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 7 - 15cv1146-WQH-AGS

Case 3:15-cv-01146-WQH-AGS Document 111 Filed 06/01/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 7