Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-05858/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-05858-10/pdf.json

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

---

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

TVBI COMPANY LIMITED,

Plaintiff,

v.

HONG THOA THI PHAM, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-05858-SI 

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO FILE A 

COUNTERCLAIM

Re: Dkt. No. 100

Defendant Hong Thoa Thi Pham has moved for leave to file a counterclaim against TVBI, 

in this case which is set for jury trial approximately one month from now, on July 8, 2019. Dkt. No. 

100. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this matter appropriate for resolution 

without oral argument and VACATES the hearing set for June 14, 2019. The Court DENIES the 

motion.

1

Plaintiff TVBI filed its complaint in October 2017. Dkt. at 1. A year later, in October 2018, 

defendant substituted attorneys, retaining her current counsel. Dkt. No. 67. On May 7, 2019, Ms. 

Pham filed the instant motion seeking leave to file a counterclaim “to offset the amounts [she] put 

into Lido Enterprise ... to keep the night club afloat.” Dkt. No. 100 at 5. After defendant retained

her current counsel, (1) the parties submitted several discovery disputes to the Court (Dkt. Nos. 77 

and 88), (2) the parties submitted a February 5, 2019 stipulation to continue trial deadlines (Dkt. 

No. 80), (3) Ms. Pham filed an April 5, 2019 opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment 

(Dkt. No. 93), and (4) the parties submitted an April 26, 2019 stipulation to further continue trial 

 

1 The Court GRANTS Ms. Pham’s ex parte application for leave to file her reply. Dkt. No. 

105. 

Case 3:17-cv-05858-SI Document 106 Filed 06/05/19 Page 1 of 3
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

deadlines (Dkt. No. 97). 

In her opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, Ms. Pham argued that “at the 

end of the day ... TVBI could end up owing her money” based on an estimated $289,366.97 Ms. 

Pham alleges she contributed to the Lido Nightclub. Dkt. No. 93 at 8 (Defendants’ Opposition to 

MSJ). Therefore, at a minimum, Ms. Pham was aware of the arguments regarding these payments 

in March/April 2019 when she was preparing her opposition. Yet, despite this, and despite the 

parties being heavily involved in discovery, which surely crystalized this issue earlier, only now has 

Ms. Pham moved to file a counterclaim. 

Ms. Pham admits the deadline to file a counterclaim has passed but urges the Court to grant 

her leave to file such a claim due to “excusable neglect” pursuant to FRCP 6(b)(1)(B).2 Dkt. No. 

100 at 2. To determine whether a party’s failure to meet a deadline constitutes “excusable neglect,” 

courts apply a four-factor test examining: (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the 

length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay, including 

whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant; and (4) whether the movant acted in 

good faith. Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1995). Ms. 

Pham has not met these elements. 

First, because the trial date is imminent, plaintiff would be prejudiced by not having the 

opportunity to file a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment – not to mention being 

precluded from conducting discovery specifically targeted towards the proposed counterclaim. 

Second, while it is true Ms. Pham’s counsel was retained this past October 2018, that means 

counsel waited seven months to raise this issue. This delay is unexplainable and inexcusable. 

Third, the reason for the delay is entirely within Ms. Pham and her counsel’s control. Ms. 

Pham argues that when she changed counsel she also hired an expert to assess damages and “[d]uring 

that process it was identified that Ms. Pham had made substantial contributions to Lido Enterprise 

 

2 FRCP 6(b)(1): Extending Time: In General. When an act may or must be done within a 

specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time:

(A)With or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the 

original time or its extension expires; or

(B) On motion made after the time has expired if the party filed to act because of 

excusable neglect. (emphasis added)

Case 3:17-cv-05858-SI Document 106 Filed 06/05/19 Page 2 of 3
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

to keep the business afloat and those losses were not borne equally by TVBI.” Dkt. No. 100 at 3-4. 

However, Ms. Pham surely did not need an expert to tell her that she put nearly $300,000 of her 

own money into the business. The Court also notes that Ms. Pham’s motion is silent with respect 

to the date when the expert was retained and when this “discovery” was made. 

Fourth, the Court has serious questions as to whether Ms. Pham has acted in good faith, 

given the fact that this motion was filed only after the parties submitted a stipulation to move the 

trial date on April 26, 2019 – without any mention of the instant request to file a counterclaim.

Ms. Pham also argues FRCP 15(a)3requires the Court to grant her leave to file a 

counterclaim. It does not. FRCP 15(a) states that leave to file an amended pleading be “freely given 

when justice so requires.” But the Supreme Court has made clear that this is only true “[i]n 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.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). The Court has already discussed

above its serious concerns about the timing of the instant motion – prejudicing plaintiff and 

implicating both undue delay and bad faith. 

Ms. Pham’s motion for leave to file a counterclaim is therefore DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 5, 2019

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

 

3 FRCP 15(a)(2): Other Amendments. In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading 

only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court should freely give 

leave when justice so requires. 

Case 3:17-cv-05858-SI Document 106 Filed 06/05/19 Page 3 of 3