Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-02409/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-02409-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

Case No.: 5:12-cv-02409-EJD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FOURTH AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DARYL DE KECZER,

Plaintiff,

v.

TETLEY USA, INC,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:12-cv-02409-EJD 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A 

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

Re: Dkt. No. 80

Presently before the Court is Daryl de Keczer’s (“Plaintiff” or “de Keczer”) Motion for 

Leave to File a Fourth Amended Complaint (“Motion”). See Dkt. No. 80. The Court found this 

matter suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) and 

previously vacated the hearing. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1332. Having fully reviewed the parties’ briefing, and for the following reasons, the Court 

DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Daryl de Keczer filed this putative class action against Defendant Tetley USA Inc. 

(“Defendant” or “Tetley”) alleging that Tetley has made, and continues to make, false and 

deceptive claims on its misbranded packaged food products in violation of federal and California 

laws. See Dkt. No. 1.

Tetley claims on its labeling package that its product is an “excellent source of natural 

Case 5:12-cv-02409-EJD Document 88 Filed 07/10/15 Page 1 of 4
2

Case No.: 5:12-cv-02409-EJD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FOURTH AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

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

antioxidants.” See Dkt. No. 59 at 3. Plaintiff alleges that this violates nutrient content labeling

regulations mandated by federal and California law which limit such labels to products that

contain, per serving, at least 10% of the DRV of any one antioxidant. Tetley also claims its 

product is the “smart choice for your healthy lifestyle.” See id. Plaintiff alleges Tetley’s products 

do not have approval from FDA to make health related claims. See id. Plaintiff argues that this 

claim violates 21 U.S.C. § 352(f)(1) and as such, the Tetley products are misbranded. See id.

Defendant denies that any laws were violated and contends that Plaintiff’s claims lack

merit. See id. Specifically, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff lacks Article III standing to bring 

claims for products he did not purchase and statements he did not see and rely upon. See id. 

Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint on May 11, 2012. See Dkt. No. 1. The Complaint 

included a claim for “Restitution Based on Unjust Enrichment/Quasi-Contract.” Id. On July 23, 

2012, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. See Dkt. No. 14. Among other things, Defendant 

argued that Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim failed as a matter of law and was superfluous given 

the other claims in the case. Id. On August 13, 2012, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint again 

stating a claim for “Restitution Based on Unjust Enrichment/Quasi-Contract.” See Dkt. No. 21. 

Defendants again moved to dismiss. See Dkt. No. 22. 

On August 16, 2013, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss. See Dkt. No. 47. 

The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s breach of warranty claims with prejudice and dismissed the 

remaining claims, including the unjust enrichment claim, with leave to amend. Id. The Court 

ordered Plaintiff to file any amended claims “within 15 days.” Id.

Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) on September 3, 2013, 

and a Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) on September 15, 2014. See Dkt. Nos. 48, 72. Both 

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint and Third Amended Complaint did not include a formal 

claim for unjust enrichment. See Dkt. Nos. 71, 72. Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the 

Second Amended Complaint on October 18, 2013. See Dkt. No. 54. Defendant answered the 

Third Amended Complaint on October 17, 2014. See Dkt. No. 75. Presently before the Court is 

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend. See Dkt. No. 80.

Case 5:12-cv-02409-EJD Document 88 Filed 07/10/15 Page 2 of 4
3

Case No.: 5:12-cv-02409-EJD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FOURTH AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

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

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

Most motions to amend the pleadings are initially subject to the liberal standard for 

amendments contained in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (“The 

court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.”); Morongo Band of Mission 

Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990). But here, the court-imposed deadline for 

amendments to the pleadings expired before this motion was filed. As such, Plaintiff’s motion is 

preliminarily governed by Rule 16 rather than Rule 15. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations Inc., 

975 F.2d 604, 607-608 (1992). 

Under Rule 16, Plaintiff must initially demonstrate sufficient “good cause” to modify the 

scheduling order so as to allow for the late amendments. See id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) 

(“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.”). If, and only 

if, the requisite good cause is shown, the court then turns to an examination of the relevant factors 

under Rule 15. Hood v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 567 F. Supp. 2d 1221, 1224 (E.D. Cal 

2008); Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (“If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”).

III. DISCUSSION

In examining this matter, the Court must be mindful of what can constitute “good cause” 

under Rule 16. “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.” 

Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. “The district court may modify the pretrial schedule if it cannot 

reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id. (internal 

quotations omitted). “[N]ot only must parties participate from the outset in creating a workable 

Rule 16 scheduling order but they must also diligently attempt to adhere to that schedule 

throughout the subsequent course of the litigation.” Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 

607 (E.D. Cal. 1999). 

Having considered the positions of both parties, Plaintiff has not met its burden under Rule 

16. First, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend his claim for unjust enrichment when it was 

Case 5:12-cv-02409-EJD Document 88 Filed 07/10/15 Page 3 of 4
4

Case No.: 5:12-cv-02409-EJD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FOURTH AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

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

dismissed, but Plaintiff failed to do so within the 15 days afforded by the Court’s order. See Dkt. 

No. 47 at 7. Plaintiff elected not to file an amended claim within that time and omitted a claim for 

unjust enrichment from the subsequent Second Amended Complaint and Third Amended 

Complaint. Instead, more than 18 months later, and without any reasonable explanation for the 

delay, Plaintiff now seeks leave to re-plead the unjust enrichment claim. Due to the lapse in time 

and absent a formal claim for unjust enrichment in subsequent pleading, the unjust enrichment

claim has been waived. See Lacey v Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en 

banc).

Second, Plaintiff simply seeks an order permitting the filing of the amended complaint 

without moving for relief under Rule 16 or demonstrating that the Rule’s requirements are met. 

Johnson, 975 F.2d at 975. As such, Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally defective. 

Finally, even were the Court to consider the motion as a de facto motion pursuant to Rule 

16, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good cause to permit amendment of the complaint. Here, 

Plaintiff’s requested amendment pertains to facts that it was well-aware of at the time of the filing 

of the Second Amended Complaint and Third Amended Complaint. See Dkt. Nos. 48, 72. This 

case has been pending for almost three years. Despite the ample time and opportunities, Plaintiff 

offers no explanation for not seeking leave to amend before it filed the Second or Third Amended 

Complaint. Under such circumstances, Plaintiff has not demonstrated the requisite diligence.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Fourth Amended 

Complaint is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 10, 2015

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:12-cv-02409-EJD Document 88 Filed 07/10/15 Page 4 of 4