Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07067/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07067-5/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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MMCA GROUP, LTD.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-06-7067 MMC

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED

COMPLAINT; DENYING AS MOOT

BRI’S MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS

ASSERTED AGAINST PINKERTON

EUROPE; DENYING AS MOOT

HEWLETT-PACKARD’S MOTION TO

CONTINUE HEARINGS ON MOTIONS

FOR LEAVE TO AMEND AND TO

DISMISS; VACATING HEARINGS

(Docket Nos. 16, 59, 70)

Before the Court are three motions: (1) the motion filed January 8, 2007 by Business

Risks International Limited (U.K.) (“BRI”) to dismiss the claims asserted against Pinkerton

Consulting & Investigations Europe (“Pinkerton Europe”); (2) the motion filed February 2,

2007 by plaintiff for leave to file an amended complaint deleting Pinkerton Europe as a

defendant and adding BRI and Pinkerton’s, Inc. as defendants; and (3) the motion filed

February 9, 2007 by defendants Hewlett-Packard Company, Robert Cozzolina and Warren

Rother (collectively, “HP”) to continue the hearings on the above-referenced motions. 

Having considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motions, the Court

finds the matters appropriate for decision without oral argument, hereby VACATES the

February 23, 2007 hearing on the motion to dismiss, as well as the March 9, 2007 hearing

on the motion for leave to amend, and rules as follows.

Case 3:06-cv-07067-MMC Document 88 Filed 02/16/07 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 1

 Defendants PICA, HP, and Kevin Hunsaker have filed answers to the complaint.

2

A. Motion to Amend

The Court begins with plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend. Where, as here, a

responsive pleading has been filed to the complaint,1

 the plaintiff may amend the complaint

“only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely

given when justice so requires.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Generally, leave to amend

should be granted with “extreme liberality.” See Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc.,

316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003). In deciding whether justice requires granting leave to

amend, factors to be considered include the presence or absence of undue delay, bad faith

or dilatory motive on the part of the moving party, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by

previous amendments, undue prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of the proposed

amendment. See id. at 1052 (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). “[T]he

consideration of prejudice to the opposing party carries the greatest weight.” Id. “Absent

prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman factors, there exists a

presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Id. (emphasis in

original).

Plaintiff states it seeks leave to amend for the purpose of “nam[ing] the correct

parties engaged in the wrongful conduct . . . for which it has sought relief.” (See Motion to

Amend at 5:21-23.) According to plaintiff, it initially named Pinkerton Europe as a

defendant because it believed Pinkerton Europe was a separate corporation that engaged

in wrongful conduct against plaintiff. (See Motion to Amend at 5:23-26.) Plaintiff learned of

BRI’s existence when BRI moved to dismiss all claims asserted against Pinkerton Europe

and argued BRI “does business as Pinkerton [Europe].” (See Motion to Dismiss at 2:25;

Cherry Decl. ¶ 4.) When it received BRI’s motion, plaintiff conducted additional research

and learned that BRI “appears to be a failing business with a small number of employees

and little financial capital” that is wholly-owned by Pinkerton’s, Inc. (See Motion to Amend

at 6:17-21; Cherry Decl. ¶ 7 and Ex. C.) Plaintiff thus seeks leave to amend its complaint

Case 3:06-cv-07067-MMC Document 88 Filed 02/16/07 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

to drop Pinkerton Europe as a defendant, to add BRI and Pinkerton’s, Inc. as new

defendants, and to allege that BRI and Pinkerton’s, Inc. are alter egos or agents of each

other.

As plaintiff has not amended its complaint previously, it has not repeatedly failed to

cure deficiencies by previous amendments. BRI does not contend that plaintiff engaged in

undue delay or bad faith in seeking to amend, or that it would suffer undue prejudice if

leave to amend were granted. Rather, BRI argues amendment would be futile because

(1) the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over BRI, and (2) although BRI, in a corporate

filing, identified Pinkerton’s, Inc. as owner of all but one of BRI’s shares, that filing was in

error and BRI’s shares are actually owned by Pinkerton Consulting & Investigations, Inc. 

Such factual defenses, however, can be tested by a new motion and, if appropriate,

discovery, after the complaint is amended and the new defendants are served. See, e.g.,

Miller v. Rykoff-Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 1988) (reversing denial of motion

for leave to amend complaint where “questions of fact must be resolved to determine”

whether proposed amendment would be futile).

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend its complaint will be granted.

B. Motion to Dismiss

As the Court is granting plaintiff’s motion to amend its complaint to, inter alia, drop all

causes of action asserted against Pinkerton Europe, BRI’s motion to dismiss all such

claims will be denied as moot.

C. Motion to Continue Hearings

In light of the above rulings, there is no need for a hearing on the motion for leave to

amend or the motion to dismiss and, accordingly, HP’s motion to continue those hearings

will be denied as moot.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above,

1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend its complaint is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff

shall file its amended complaint no later than February 23, 2007.

Case 3:06-cv-07067-MMC Document 88 Filed 02/16/07 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

2. BRI’s motion to dismiss all claims asserted against Pinkerton Europe is hereby

DENIED as moot.

3. HP’s motion to continue the hearings on the above-referenced motions is hereby

DENIED as moot.

This order terminates Docket Nos. 16, 59, and 70.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 16, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-07067-MMC Document 88 Filed 02/16/07 Page 4 of 4