Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-05020/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-05020-17/pdf.json

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

PRIME MEDIA GROUP, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

ACER AMERICA CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 12-cv-05020-BLF 

ORDER:

(1)DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION 

TO JOIN ACER, INC. AS A PARTY TO 

THIS ACTION, AND 

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO CONSOLIDATE CASES FOR 

TRIAL

[Re: ECF 222]

On May 21, 2015, Plaintiff moved this Court, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

15, 19, and 20, to join Acer Inc. as a Defendant in the above-captioned action, presently scheduled 

to begin trial on June 1, 2015. Since trial in this action is rapidly approaching, and further because 

Defendant’s opposition to this motion would not be due until after the first day of trial is 

scheduled to begin, the parties appeared before the Court on May 22, 2015 to discuss Plaintiff’s 

motion. For the reasons stated on the record during the parties’ appearance, and further discussed 

below, the Court DENIES the motion. 

Plaintiff contends that “Acer Inc. must be joined as a party to this case in order for Prime 

Media’s claims to be properly and fully resolved at the upcoming trial.” Mot. at 1. Plaintiff is 

currently proceeding in two related actions against Acer entities: the above-captioned case, and a 

second case, also before the undersigned, against Acer Inc. and Acer Europe S.A, see Case No. 

5:15-cv-1162-BLF. Plaintiff contends that Acer America’s counsel in this action, “[i]n contrast to 

the allegations in its Counterclaim, other pleadings, and even the parties’ stipulations for trial,”

now claims that Acer America is not a party to a contract, the Pleasing Agreement, which gives 

rise to certain claims by Plaintiff. See id. Plaintiff argues that this new assertion demands that Acer 

Case 5:12-cv-05020-BLF Document 229 Filed 05/26/15 Page 1 of 4
2

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

Northern District of California

Inc. be joined as a Defendant in this action. 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15, 19, and 20 govern the amendment of pleadings and 

the joinder of parties. Rule 15 permits a party to amend its pleadings, including to add parties, 

with leave of court “when justice so requires.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Rule 19 requires the 

joinder of a defendant when the Court is unable to afford complete relief among existing parties to 

the action. See League to Save Lake Tahoe v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 558 F.2d 914, 916-17 

(9th Cir. 1977) (stating that Rule 19 is designed to protect parties from “inconsistent judicial 

determinations or the impairment of interests or rights”). Rule 20, in contrast to the mandatory 

joinder provision of Rule 19, regulates permissive joinder. Under Rule 20, a Court may join a 

defendant to an action when “(1) a right to relief must be asserted by, or against, each plaintiff or 

defendant relating to or arising out of the same transaction or occurrence; and (2) some question of 

law or fact common to all the parties will arise in the action.” Id. at 917. In the alternative, 

Plaintiff moves the Court to consolidate the two related actions for trial pursuant to Rule 42, which 

permits a Court, when multiple actions before it involve a common question of fact, to “join for 

hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(1). 

Ultimately, Plaintiff’s arguments are unavailing. As to Rule 15, justice does not require 

permitting Plaintiff to amend its complaint this late in the action – with trial now less than one 

week away – to add Acer Inc. as a Defendant. In the related case, Case No. 5:15-cv-1162-BLF, 

Acer Inc.’s counsel sent a letter to Prime Media’s counsel stating that “Acer Inc. was the only 

Acer entity party to the contract ultimately assigned to Prime Media.” Mot. Exh. A at 2. Prime 

Media now argues that Acer Inc. should be joined as a party to this case based on this new 

assertion. The Court disagrees. It seems clear that a review of the Pleasing Agreement, showing 

“Acer Inc.” as the contracting party, should have put Prime Media on notice years ago that further 

discovery was necessary to determine the contractual rights of the parties. It is simply too late in 

the game to notice such a glaring inconsistency and to rely on Acer Inc.’s assertion in the related 

case to base this request to add Acer Inc. as a party to this case. Though Acer Inc.’s statement may 

doom claims by both parties for breach of written contract, it is not, as Plaintiff claims, 

irreconcilable with the positions Acer America has otherwise taken in this action such that justice

Case 5:12-cv-05020-BLF Document 229 Filed 05/26/15 Page 2 of 4
3

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

Northern District of California

requires the Court to permit Prime Media to amend its Complaint. Justice and fairness, in fact, 

compel the opposite conclusion: demanding that Acer Inc. appear as a party in this action with 

mere days to go before trial would be manifestly unfair to Acer Inc. Cf., e.g., Nelson v. Adams 

USA, Inc., 529 U.S. 460, 466-67 (2000).

Plaintiff’s Rule 19 and Rule 20 arguments fare no better. Nothing prevents the Court here 

from affording full relief among the parties in this action, a necessary condition for mandatory

joinder under Rule 19. Plaintiff and Defendant dispute whether Plaintiff can prove a breach of 

written contract claim against the Defendant and, conversely, whether Defendant can prove a 

counterclaim regarding the same. Defendant’s argument that Acer America was not a party to the 

Pleasing Agreement is a defense to Plaintiff’s action. Rule 19 does not contemplate courts joining 

parties late in the litigation merely because a Defendant raises a possibly exculpatory defense.

Instead, courts engaging in a Rule 19 analysis concern themselves with several factors, including 

“plaintiff's right to decide whom he shall sue, avoiding multiple litigation, providing the parties 

with complete and effective relief in a single action, protecting the absentee [party], and fairness to 

the other party.” Bakia v. Los Angeles Cnty., 687 F.2d 299, 301 (9th Cir. 1982) (“It is a 

misapplication of Rule 19(a) to add parties who are neither necessary nor indispensable.”). 

Plaintiff chose to sue only Acer America in this action and elected to bring a separate suit against

two other Acer entities in a related action. Though a denial of Plaintiff’s motion could result in 

two trials, each of the other factors under a Rule 19 analysis, particularly fairness to Acer Inc. as 

the absent party and the fact that Acer Inc. is neither necessary nor indispensable for resolution of 

this action, requires that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion. 

Rule 20 permits joinder of parties when two circumstances are met: “(1) a right to relief 

must be asserted by, or against, each plaintiff or defendant relating to or arising out of the same 

transaction or occurrence; and (2) some question of law or fact common to all the parties will arise 

in the action.” Tahoe Reg’l at 917. Once those circumstances are satisfied, as they are here, the 

Court “must also examine the other relevant factors in a case in order to determine whether the 

permissive joinder of a party will comport with the principles of fundamental fairness.” Desert 

Empire Bank v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 623 F.2d 1371, 1375 (9th Cir. 1980). As the Court has noted 

Case 5:12-cv-05020-BLF Document 229 Filed 05/26/15 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

above, it would be fundamentally unfair to Acer Inc. to be joined as a Defendant in this action 

fewer than ten days before trial. Cf. Tahoe Reg’l at 917-18 (noting that while Rule 20 is to be 

construed liberally, the purpose of such liberal construction is “to promote trial convenience”). 

The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint under Rule 15 or 

join parties under Rules 19 and 20. 

In the alternative, Plaintiff asks the Court to consolidate its two cases against Acer entities

for trial pursuant to Rule 42. A district court has “broad discretion under this rule to consolidate 

cases pending” before it, Investors Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of California, 

877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989), and when determining whether to consolidate cases for trial, 

the Court “should consider (1) the risk of delaying trial, (2) the risk of prejudice and confusion, 

and (3) the potential burden on the parties, witnesses, and available judicial resources.” Dusky v. 

Bellasaire Investments, 2007 WL 4403985, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2007). Here, all three factors 

weigh against consolidation. Most notably, the pleadings in the Acer Inc. action have not yet been 

set, and there is a motion to dismiss set to be heard on August 6, 2015; due to the fairness 

concerns surrounding Acer Inc., consolidation would certainly delay this trial, which has already

been continued once before on the motion of the parties, for a substantial amount of time. Because 

consolidation would further burden the parties and the Court, and would harm the speedy 

resolution of this case, the motion to consolidate the Acer actions for trial is also DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 26, 2015

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:12-cv-05020-BLF Document 229 Filed 05/26/15 Page 4 of 4