Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01862/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01862-3/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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GATAN, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

NION COMPANY, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 15-cv-1862-PJH 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF 

 Before the court is plaintiff’s motion for administrative relief seeking clarification, or 

in the alternative, for leave. Plaintiff was given leave to amend its complaint, with the 

condition that “no new claims may be added without leave of court or the consent of all 

parties.” See Dkt. 33. Plaintiff now seeks to divide its prior breach of contract claim into 

two separate claims, though it maintains that “this is not a ‘new claim’ but rather revising 

its existing claims in a manner that improves clarity.” 

 Plaintiff informs the court that it sought a stipulation from defendant, but while 

defendant “did not have a conceptual problem with agreeing to the act of dividing claims,” 

it could not stipulate to the proposed amended complaint without first seeing it. However, 

because the second amended complaint was still “being revised,” plaintiff was “unable to 

share a finalized second amended complaint with [defendant] prior to the filing deadline.” 

 The issue raised by defendant is the same issue that prevents the court from 

granting plaintiff’s administrative motion. Without reviewing the proposed amended 

complaint, the court cannot determine whether it adds new claims, and thus cannot 

determine whether it complies with the scope of plaintiff’s leave to amend. Thus, 

Case 4:15-cv-01862-PJH Document 39 Filed 12/10/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

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 

pla

cou

sec

sha

def

ad

cou

Da

aintiff’s adm

Howev

urt involvem

cond amen

all then hav

fendant’s c

ministrative

urt’s review

IT IS S

ated: Dece

ministrative 

ver, becaus

ment, the co

nded compla

ve until Dec

consent to t

e motion for

w. 

SO ORDER

mber 10, 20

motion is D

se it appear

ourt hereby

aint to defe

cember 23,

he filing of 

r leave with

RED. 

015 

2

DENIED. 

rs likely that

y directs pla

endant no la

, 2015 to ei

the second

h the propos

__

PH

Un

t this issue 

aintiff to pro

ater than De

ither submi

d amended 

sed amend

__________

HYLLIS J. H

nited States

can be res

ovide a cop

ecember 1

t a stipulati

complaint, 

ded compla

__________

HAMILTON

s District Ju

solved witho

y of its prop

16, 2015. P

on reflectin

or to subm

int attached

__________

udge 

out further 

posed 

Plaintiff 

ng 

mit an 

d for the 

_______ 

Case 4:15-cv-01862-PJH Document 39 Filed 12/10/15 Page 2 of 2