Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01876/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01876-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

INGREDION, INC., a Delaware 

corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

TIMMERMAN STARLITE TRUCKING, 

INC., a California 

corporation,

Defendant.

TIMMERMAN STARLITE TRUCKING, 

INC., a California 

corporation, 

Plaintiff,

v.

INGREDION, INC., a Delaware 

corporation, and DOES 1 

through 10, inclusive,

Defendant.

No. 2:19-cv-01876-JAM-AC 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE 

TO AMEND COMPLAINT

In August 2019, Timmerman Starlite Trucking (“Starlite”) 

sued Ingredion for breach of contract in San Joaquin County 

Superior Court. Exh. A to Notice of Removal (“Compl.”), ECF No. 

1. Ingredion removed the case to federal court a month later.

Case 2:19-cv-01876-JAM-AC Document 17 Filed 01/31/20 Page 1 of 8
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

2

See Notice of Removal. The Court then related Starlite’s case 

against Ingredion to an action Ingredion filed against Starlite 

in June 2019. Related Case Order, ECF No. 6. Shortly 

thereafter, the parties stipulated to consolidating the two 

cases. Stipulation and Order, ECF No. 13. 

At issue now is Starlite’s motion to amend its complaint. 

See Mot. to Amend (“Mot.”), ECF No. 11. Starlite seeks to bring 

an additional breach of contract claim against Ingredion. Id. at 

6. Ingredion opposes the motion, arguing the proposed amendment 

would cause impermissible delay and comingle unrelated issues, 

resulting in “additional costs and confusion.” Opp’n, ECF No. 2. 

Timmerman filed a reply to address these arguments. Reply, ECF 

No. 15.1 The Court does not find that Starlite’s proposed 

amendment is so delayed or unrelated to the issues before the 

Court that granting leave to amend would unduly prejudice 

Ingredion. For the reasons discussed below, Starlite’s motion to 

amend is GRANTED. 

I. BACKGROUND

Starlite is a California corporation. Mot. at 2. It 

specializes in “transportation of frozen and refrigerated goods, 

harvest operations, and bulk ingredients through a full-service 

freight line.” Id. Ingredion is a Delaware corporation. Id. 

It “manufactures ingredient solutions [such as] sweeteners, 

starches, nutrition ingredients, and biomaterials.” Id.

 

1This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without 

oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was 

scheduled for January 14, 2020.

Case 2:19-cv-01876-JAM-AC Document 17 Filed 01/31/20 Page 2 of 8
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

At the beginning of 2017, Ingredion and Starlite entered 

into two five-year contracts. Mot. at 2-3. The Ingredient 

Shuttle Agreement (“Shuttle Agreement”) designated Starlite as 

Ingredion’s “exclusive provider” for certain on-site 

transportation, handling, and cleaning services relating to 

Ingredion’s wet corn gluten feed at its milling plant in 

Stockton, California. Mot. at 2; Opp’n at 2; see also Exh. A to 

Compl. The Truck Transportation and Brokerage Agreement (“Master 

Carrier Agreement”) required Starlite to, as needed, provide 

freight and brokerage services for Ingredion’s Buffalo Corn Wet 

Feed from its Stockton plant to surrounding farms. Mot. at 2-3; 

Opp’n at 2-3. 

Nearly two years into the agreements, Ingredion notified 

Starlite that it was ending its manufacturing operations at the 

Stockton plant. Mot. at 3; Opp’n at 3. In response, Starlite 

sued Ingredion for breach of contract—but only under the Shuttle 

Agreement. See Compl. ¶¶ 28-33. Starlite’s proposed amendment 

would allege Ingredion’s decision to cease operations at its 

Stockton plant also breached the Master Carrier Agreement. 

II. OPINION

A. Evidentiary Objections

Starlite filed a declaration by its attorney, Meghan Baker, 

to supplement its motion. ECF No. 11-2. Ingredion objects to 

paragraphs 2-5 and paragraphs 7-9 of Baker’s declaration, along 

with lines 1-5 of paragraph 6. Opp’n at 7-8. Ingredion argues 

the Court should strike these portions of the declaration 

because Baker failed to establish she has personal knowledge and 

Case 2:19-cv-01876-JAM-AC Document 17 Filed 01/31/20 Page 3 of 8
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

failed to authenticate the documents attached to her 

declaration. Id. Starlite opposes these objections, in part, 

but because the opposition falls outside the Court’s page 

limits, the opposition is not properly before the Court and will 

not be considered. See Order re Filing Requirements, ECF No. 7-

2. 

A declarant “may testify to a matter only if evidence is 

introduced sufficient to support a finding that [she] has 

personal knowledge of the matter.” FRE 602. The Court agrees 

with Ingredion that Baker failed to establish she has personal 

knowledge of the information contained in paragraphs 2-5, lines 

1-5 of paragraph 6, lines 3-5 of paragraph 8, paragraph 9, and 

Exhibit 2. The Court sustains Ingredion’s objection with 

respect to these statements and has not considered them in its 

analysis. The Court, however, overrules Ingredion’s objections 

to paragraph 7, lines 1-2 of paragraph 8, and Exhibit 1. Baker 

has been an attorney of record on this case since its inception;

common sense counsels the finding that these statements are 

supported by her personal knowledge. 

B. Analysis

Before a court issues the scheduling order in a case, it 

must “freely grant leave to amend when justice so requires.” 

Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 15(a)(2); Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 

(1962). “Amendments seeking to add claims are to be granted 

[even] more freely than amendments adding parties.” Union 

Pacif. R. Co. v. Nevada Power Co., 950 F.2d 1429, 1432 (9th Cir. 

1991). Rule 15(a)(2)’s mandate rests upon the notion that “[i]f 

the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff 

Case 2:19-cv-01876-JAM-AC Document 17 Filed 01/31/20 Page 4 of 8
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

5

may be a proper subject of relief, he ought to be afforded an 

opportunity to test his claim on the merits.” Foman, 371 U.S. 

at 182. 

In light of Rule 15(a)’s text and purpose, the Ninth 

Circuit has instructed that “[c]ourts may decline to grant leave 

to amend only if there is strong evidence of ‘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, [or] futility of amendment, etc.’” Sonoma County 

Ass’n of Retired Employees v. Sonoma County, 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 

(9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Foman, 371 U.S. at 182) (modifications 

in original). Of paramount importance is the prejudice that 

allowing an amendment would work upon the other party. Howey v. 

U.S., 481 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1973). The fact that there 

was some delay in requesting the amendment, however, carries far 

less weight. See Sonoma County Ass’n of Retired Employees, 708 

F.3d at 1118. Indeed, Rule 15 may compel granting leave to 

amend even when a suit has been ongoing for several years—“the 

mere fact that an amendment is offered late in the case . . . is 

not enough to bar it.” Id. (internal quotations omitted) 

(modifications in original). 

Ingredion first argues the Court should deny Starlite’s 

motion to amend because it is a bad faith attempt to delay 

litigation. Opp’n at 4-5. Starlite states it failed to include 

two breach of contract claims in its initial complaint because 

it misunderstood the relationship between the Shuttle Agreement 

and the Master Carrier Agreement. Mot. at 4. Starlite 

Case 2:19-cv-01876-JAM-AC Document 17 Filed 01/31/20 Page 5 of 8
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

6

purportedly understood the two agreements—both signed on the 

same day and for a five-year term—as a singular contract. Id. 

Ingredion contends the proposed amended complaint undermines

this explanation. Id. The proposed amended complaint alleges

that, before Ingredion shut down its Stockton plant, the parties 

discussed both agreements and whether termination of either 

agreement would constitute breach. Proposed First Amended 

Complaint ¶¶ 30-31, ECF No. 11-2. Ingredion’s argument appears 

to be that if the parties previously discussed the existence of 

two agreements, Starlite could not have understood the 

agreements as separate parts of a singular contract. The Court 

does not agree that the conclusion Ingredion proffers 

necessarily flows from the premise set forth in Starlite’s 

proposed complaint. 

Ingredion does not identify any other conduct that would 

suggest Starlite is acting with improper motives. Indeed, the 

timing of Starlite’s motion to amend indicates a good-faith

attempt to promptly remedy a mistake. Starlite filed its 

initial complaint in August 2019. It met and conferred with 

Ingredion about amending its complaint less than three months 

later. See Baker Decl. ¶ 6. Ingredion does not cite any cases

where a finding of bad faith rested on circumstances similar to 

those present here. Nor does this Court find a basis for 

arriving at such a conclusion. 

Ingredion also argues the Court should deny Starlite’s 

motion because the proposed amendment would cause undue 

prejudice. Opp’n at 6-7. It maintains the Master Carrier 

Agreement is “a wholly different agreement” than the Shuttle 

Case 2:19-cv-01876-JAM-AC Document 17 Filed 01/31/20 Page 6 of 8
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

7

Agreement. Opp’n at 6. It was signed by a different Ingredion 

employee and contains a different choice-of-law clause. Id. at 

6-7. Litigating a breach of contract claim under the Master 

Carrier Agreement, Ingredion contends, would “involve different 

discovery and different Ingredion witnesses, leading to 

additional expense” and jury confusion. Id. at 6. But the 

persuasiveness of Ingredion’s arguments falls with its lack of 

specificity. Ingredion does not explain why it would incur more 

expense by litigating these claims together than by litigating 

them separately. Nor does it argue that it would 

disproportionately bear the costs of expanding the scope of this 

litigation. 

The Court is likewise unpersuaded that allowing Starlite’s 

amendment would risk jury confusion. See id. at 6. Given proper 

guidance by the attorneys and the Court, jurors in this case will 

undoubtedly be able to appreciate the nuanced differences between 

two contracts. 

The Court does not find that allowing Starlite’s proposed 

amendment would cause Ingredion undue prejudice. Accordingly, 

Starlite’s motion is granted. 

C. Page Limits

The Court’s Order re Filing Requirements (“Order”), ECF No. 

7-2, limits memoranda in support of and opposition to motions to 

dismiss to fifteen pages. Order at 1. It limits reply memoranda 

to five pages. A violation of the Order requires the offending 

counsel (not the client) to pay $50.00 per page over the page 

limit to the Clerk of Court. Id. The Court does not consider 

arguments made past the page limit. Id. Starlite’s reply brief 

Case 2:19-cv-01876-JAM-AC Document 17 Filed 01/31/20 Page 7 of 8
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

8

exceeded the page limit by three pages. Starlite’s counsel must 

therefore send a check payable to the Clerk for the Eastern 

District of California for $150.00 no later than seven days from 

the date of this Order. 

III. ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Starlite’s

motion to amend. The First Amended Complaint attached to 

Starlite’s motion is deemed filed as of the date of this order. 

Ingredion is ordered to file its responsive pleading within 

twenty (20) days of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30, 2020

 

Case 2:19-cv-01876-JAM-AC Document 17 Filed 01/31/20 Page 8 of 8