Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-3_13-cv-00062/USCOURTS-akd-3_13-cv-00062-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

DISTRICT OF ALASKA

Cook Inlet Energy, LLC, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

) 3:13-cv-062 JWS

vs. )

)

Cudd Pressure Control, Inc. ) ORDER AND OPINION

and RPC, Inc. )

)

Defendants. )

) [Re: Motion at docket 69]

)

Cudd Pressure Control, Inc. )

)

Counter-Claimant, )

)

vs. )

)

Cook Inlet Energy, LLC )

)

Counter-Defendant. )

 )

I. MOTION PRESENTED

At docket 69, plaintiff Cook Inlet Energy, LLC (“CIE”) moves pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. Rule 15(a)(2) for leave to file its proposed Third Amended Complaint. A copy of

the proposed Third Amended Complaint is at docket 69-1. A memorandum of law

Case 3:13-cv-00062-JWS Document 96 Filed 06/04/15 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

supporting the motion is at docket 71. Defendant Cudd Pressure Control, Inc. (“Cudd”)

opposes the motion at docket 74. CIE replies at docket 85. 

II. BACKGROUND

CIE operates an offshore oil platform called the Osprey. In 2011, CIE contracted

with Cudd to provide equipment and services for work-overs on three wells drilled from

the Osprey. Cudd did so. CIE alleges that the equipment Cudd brought to the Osprey

was inadequate and that the personnel Cudd employed lacked the ability to

satisfactorily perform the work-overs. CIE alleges that these deficiencies caused CIE to

incur extra costs and suffer delay.

In its First Amended Complaint,

1

 CIE sought a declaration that CIE owes nothing 

more to Cudd. It also pled claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant

of good faith and fair dealing, and negligent misrepresentation. The First Amended

Complaint sought damages in excess of $75,000. Cudd’s counterclaims set out claims

for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and

unjust enrichment and sought damages in excess of $1,800,000.

CIE timely moved to file a Second Amended Complaint adding a claim that Cudd

breached express and implied warranties. Cudd did not oppose the motion, and it was

granted.2 Now before the court is CIE’s motion seeking leave to file a Third Amended

Complaint.

1The First Amended Complaint was filed within the time established by Fed. R. Civ. P.

15(a)(1) for amendment as a matter of course without court approval.

2Order at doc. 54.

2

Case 3:13-cv-00062-JWS Document 96 Filed 06/04/15 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

III. DISCUSSION

The Rule 16 scheduling order in this case set February 14, 2014, as the deadline

for filing motions to amend.

3

 That deadline was later extended to May 14, 2014.4 While

some other deadlines in the scheduling order have been extended, there has been no

motion fo extend the deadline for motions to amend beyond May 14, 2014.

CIE relies on Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(12) which provides that the district court

“should freely give leave when justice so requires.” However, it is not Rule 15 which

applies here, because the motion to amend is not timely under the Rule 16 scheduling

order. After a district court has filed a scheduling order setting a deadline for amending

pleadings, the standards of Rule16(b) control.5 Rule 16(b)(4) provides that a

scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” 

“Unlike Rule 15(a)’s liberal amendment policy which focuses on the bad faith of the

party seeking to interpose an amendment and the prejudice to the opposing party, Rule

16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the

amendment.”6 When a party seeking to modify a scheduling order is not diligent, the

inquiry ends and the motion should not be granted.7 CIE did not move to amend the

scheduling order, nor even include a discussion of the issue in the motion it did file. As

3Order at doc. 20.

4Order at doc. 28. It may be added that CIE filed its motion for leave to file the Second

Amended Complaint on that very date.

5

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992). 

6

Id. at 609.

7Zikovic v. Southern Calif. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). 

3

Case 3:13-cv-00062-JWS Document 96 Filed 06/04/15 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

a result, the court can find no basis for concluding CIE was sufficiently diligent to permit

amending the scheduling order. The motion at docket 69 is therefore DENIED.

DATED this 4th day of June 2015.

 /S/ 

JOHN W. SEDWICK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4

Case 3:13-cv-00062-JWS Document 96 Filed 06/04/15 Page 4 of 4