Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01058/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01058-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ST VENTURES, LLC, a Utah

Corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

KBA ASSETS AND ACQUISITIONS,

LLC, a Nevada Corporation, et al.

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-1058 LJO SMS

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FILE A 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME AS MOOT

(Docs. 81, 84)

Before the Court is the motion to file a First Amended Complaint by Plaintiff ST Ventures

and by putative Plaintiff Worldwide Investments Inc., a California company. For the reasons that 

follow, the motion is GRANTED.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On December 4, 2013, the parties participated in an off-the-record telephonic conference. 

Docs. 72, 73. The Court emphasized that this litigation is already woefully disorganized and behind 

schedule. The Court issued orders to assist the parties in getting the litigation back on track, setting 

deadlines based on the attorneys’ representations of their availability. Plaintiff’s Attorney Dollinger

desired to amend the complaint, and the Court set a deadline of December 30, 2013, based on 

Dollinger’s representation that he could meet this deadline.

On December 30, 2013, Plaintiff moved for an extension of time through January 29, 2014. 

This was styled as a motion for extension “of time to file an amended complaint.” Noting that

Plaintiff had misapprehended its order (and Rule 15) which required the filing to be in the form of a 

Case 1:12-cv-01058-LJO-SMS Document 86 Filed 03/19/14 Page 1 of 4
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

2

motion, the Court ordered that it “will grant one extension, through February 7, 2014” for Plaintiff 

to move to amend the complaint. Doc. 79. In addition, the Court ordered Attorney Dollinger to file 

certain documentation regarding his former clients no later than January 22, 2014. Id.

Dollinger provided the documentation on February 3, 2014. By declaration, he explained 

that due to a clerical error, he did not see the Court’s order until “on or about mid last week” (by the 

Court’s calculation, on or about January 29).

The motion to amend was also filed late, on February 8, 2014 (one day late). The motion 

was not accompanied by any explanation for the late filing.

1 On February 26, 2014, Defendants 

KBA and Ben Penfield objected to the motion and moved to strike it. The sole grounds for 

objection were undue delay and violation of the Court’s deadlines. Doc. 82.

On March 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed a reply. Doc. 83. Dollinger’s office manager explained by 

declaration that the late filing was due to a technical problem on her computer. Doc. 83-1. Plaintiff 

has filed a separate motion for a one-day, retroactive extension of time. Doc. 84.

LATE FILING

Plaintiff’s two late filings are facially minor and have reasonable explanations, and the 

Court will not dismiss the motion on this basis. Nevertheless, Plaintiff is reminded of the 

importance of Court-ordered deadlines. Such deadlines are particularly important in this case, 

which has fallen behind schedule and in which the Court has attempted to assist the parties in 

bringing the litigation back on track. In the future, failure to comply with the Rules or with an order 

of the Court may be grounds for imposition of “any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule 

or within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110.

MOTION TO AMEND

The proposed amendments are substantial. A new Plaintiff would be added: WORLDWIDE 

INVESTMENTS, INC., a California Corporation. Four new individual Defendants would be added: 

JETHALYN N. PENFIELD, AJ BERRONES; FRANK WILDE, and MAUREEN WILDE. And a 

variety of organizations would also be added as Defendants: VIEWPOINT SECURITIES

 

1

Separately, the motion was accompanied by what purports to be a “Declaration” of Dollinger but which in fact consists 

of argument and is not based on personal knowledge. The same is true of the Declaration accompanying Plaintiff’s Reply.

Case 1:12-cv-01058-LJO-SMS Document 86 Filed 03/19/14 Page 2 of 4
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

3

(“Viewpoint”), UBS FINANCIAL SERVICES INC. (“UBS”), ROYAL BANK OF CANADA

(“RBC”), DEPOSITORY TRUST AND CLEARING COMPANY (“DTCC”), BROWN 

BROTHERS HARRIMAN & CO. (“BRH&C”), FALCON PRIVATE BANK of ZURICH

(“Falcon”), and SETH LAYTON (“Layton”), as well as Does.

Four newly-added counts I, II, III, and V [sic] are for violations of RICO, 18 U.S.C. 

§§1962(a)-(d), respectively. The remaining ten Counts (denominated VI, VII, XI, XIII, XIV, XVIII, 

XIX, XX, XXI, and XXII [sic]), under California law, are for fraud, misrepresentation, unjust 

enrichment/restitution, tortious interference with contract, civil conspiracy, negligence/gross 

negligence, conversion/larceny, constructive trust, appointment of referee injunctive relief, and 

accounting.

Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows amendment of pleadings with 

leave of court “when justice so requires.” Although courts should freely give leave when justice 

requires, a variety of reasons may be sufficient to deny leave to amend. See Foman v. Davis, 371 

U.S. 178, 182 (1962). The Foman factors commonly considered are: 1) bad faith; 2) undue delay; 

3) prejudice to the opposing party; and 4) futility of amendment. Id. Amendments seeking to add 

claims are granted more freely than amendments seeking to add new parties. Union Pac. R. v. Nev. 

Power Co., 950 F.2d 1429, 1432 (9th Cir. 1991).

Here, there are no issues of undue delay or of bad faith. No discovery has yet been had, nor 

has the scheduling report been prepared. The amendment is not apparently futile, and prejudice to 

Defendants is not a decisive factor. The Court therefore grants the motion to amend in the interest 

of justice.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

1. The motion to amend (Doc. 81) is GRANTED.

2. Within five (5) days of this order, Plaintiffs shall file the First Amended Complaint 

with the Clerk’s office. The filed document shall be identical to the “Proposed” 

amended complaint reviewed by this Court, except that Plaintiffs shall revise the 

numbering of the claims to be consecutive.

Case 1:12-cv-01058-LJO-SMS Document 86 Filed 03/19/14 Page 3 of 4
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

4

3. Within seven (7) days of this order, a notice of appearance shall be filed by counsel 

for putative Plaintiff Worldwide Investments Inc.

4. Each defendant shall file an answer within fourteen (14) days of being served a 

summons and FAC.

5. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension (doc. 84) is denied as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 19, 2014 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01058-LJO-SMS Document 86 Filed 03/19/14 Page 4 of 4