Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00650/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00650-12/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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD J. BORACCHIA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

BIOMET, INC.,

Defendant

 /

No. C-07-0650 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT; VACATING MAY 14, 2010

HEARING

Before the Court is the Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint, filed April

6, 2010 and amended April 8, 2010 by plaintiffs Edward J. Boracchia and Boracchia &

Associates. Defendant Biomet, Inc. has filed opposition, to which plaintiffs have replied. 

Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion,

the Court deems the matter suitable for decision on the parties’ respective written

submissions, VACATES the hearing scheduled for May 14, 2010, and rules as follows:

1. To the extent the motion seeks leave to amend the First Cause of Action to allege

that the 1979 agreement was terminated in 1995, rather than in 2006 as the initial

complaint alleges, the motion is hereby DENIED. As plaintiffs acknowledge, in light of the

Ninth Circuit’s October 2009 decision, “the law of the case is that the [1979] Agreement

terminated in 1995” (see Pls.’ Mot. at 3:12-15), and such finding remains the law of the

Case 3:07-cv-00650-MMC Document 80 Filed 05/11/10 Page 1 of 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

1

In their opposition, defendant asserts that plaintiffs are seeking leave to add new

factual allegations to support the First Cause of Action, specifically, allegations that

defendant imposed “unreasonable quotas” and failed to provide “stock options” to plaintiffs. 

(See Def.’s Opp. at 6:12-14.) Although such allegations are included in the proposed

amended complaint, they are also contained in the initial complaint (see Compl. ¶¶ 15-17,

19, 21-22), and, consequently, are not new.

2

case whether or not plaintiffs are granted leave to amend to expressly allege such finding.1

Under such circumstances, granting leave to amend the First Cause of Action would “put

nothing in issue that [has] not already been resolved.” Cf. Kasey v. Molybdenum Corp.,

467 F.2d 1284, 1285 (9th Cir.) (holding “amendments should not be allowed merely to

permit . . . reassertion of a claim previously determined”), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1063

(1972).

2. To the extent the motion seeks leave to amend the Second Cause of Action to

allege the asserted violation of the Independent Wholesale Sales Representatives

Contractual Relations Act (“the Act”) “did not accrue until 2007” (see Pls.’ Mot. at 3:20-21),

the motion is hereby DENIED. As explained in plaintiffs’ motion and reply, plaintiffs’

proposed amendment is based on the theory that, under a proper reading of the Act, the

violation occurred in 2007, not in 1995. By order filed February 25, 2008, the Honorable

Wm. Fremming Nielsen found such claim accrued in 1995 and, consequently, was barred

by the applicable four-year statute of limitations. The Ninth Circuit, in its 2009 decision,

affirmed Judge Nielsen’s finding. Plaintiffs cannot avoid the Ninth Circuit’s affirmance of

Judge Nielsen’s finding by raising for the first time legal theories or arguments that could

have been, but were not, raised before the Second Cause of Action was “fully litigated on

the merits through appeal.” See In re: Beverly Hills Bancorp, 752 F.2d 1334, 1336 (9th Cir.

1984) (holding, where Ninth Circuit rejected plaintiff’s proposed interpretation of language

in contract, plaintiff was not entitled on remand to amend to allege contract was subject to

reformation; stating “[p]ermitting amendment [to assert new theory on remand] would

encourage seriatim judgments in the same basic dispute, as a plaintiff continues to put

forth new theories of recovery”).

//

Case 3:07-cv-00650-MMC Document 80 Filed 05/11/10 Page 2 of 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

3

3. To the extent the motion seeks leave to amend to delete the Third Cause of

Action in light of the Ninth Circuit’s affirmance of Judge Nielsen’s finding that such cause of

action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, the motion is hereby DENIED as

moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 11, 2010 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00650-MMC Document 80 Filed 05/11/10 Page 3 of 3