Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-03894/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-03894-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited.

Case No. C 02-03894 JF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

(JFLC1)

**E-Filed 11/7/05**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

SODEXHO MARRIOTT, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 02-03894 JF

ORDER1 GRANTING MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT

[Docket No. 61, 62]

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Karen Whyman alleges that she suffered injuries from electrocution by a toaster

on February 23, 2001. The electrocution occurred at the Aruba Café on the Hewlett Packard

campus in Cupertino, California. According to Whyman, Defendant Sodexho, Inc. (“Sodexho”)

(formerly Sodexho Marriot) had a contract with Hewlett Packard to provide food service and

facilities maintenance and management. The toaster was manufactured by Defendant Hamilton

Beach/Proctor Silex, Inc. (“Hamilton Beach”).

Case 3:02-cv-03894-CRB Document 86 Filed 11/07/05 Page 1 of 6
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

Case No. C 02-03894 JF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

(JFLC1)

On February 22, 2002, Whyman filed the original complaint in Santa Clara Superior

Court. Defendants removed to this Court on August 13, 2002. The original complaint alleges

two claims, strict liability and negligence, against both named Defendants and Does 1-30. The

docket shows that parties attempted to settle the instant case through October, 2004. In

December 2004, Sodexho substituted its counsel of record, and in May 2005, Whyman

substituted hers. At the June 10, 2005 Case Management Conference, parties agreed to a

scheduling order, which set deadlines including November 14, 2005 for non-expert discovery and

January 30, 2006 for trial.

On September 28, 2005, Whyman filed the instant motion for leave to file a first amended

complaint. On October 17, 2005, parties stipulated to extending the hearing for the instant

motion from October 21, 2005 to November 4, 2005 and extending deadlines for expert

disclosures. On October 18, 2005, Sodexho filed opposition to the instant motion. On October

24, 2005, Plaintiff Travelers Indemnity Company filed a motion for summary judgment.

Whyman’s first amended complaint includes a new claim against Sodexho for premises

liability, modifies the original two claims, and specifies against which defendants the claims are

filed. Parties disagree about the extent to which the amended complaint is different from the

original complaint. Whyman argues that the amended complaint merely “clarifies” the first two

claims, the additional claim relies on no new factual allegations, and the claims and defenses

under a premises theory are virtually identical to those under a negligence theory. However,

Sodexho argues that the amended complaint asserts significantly different theories of liability and

relies on new factual allegations. Sodexho argues that it would be prejudiced if the Court grants

the instant motion.

II. DISCUSSION

The request for leave to amend is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a),

which provides that “leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.” In deciding whether

to grant leave to amend, the Court will consider several factors, including: (1) undue delay by

the party seeking the amendment; (2) prejudice to the opposing party; (3) bad faith; (4) futility of

amendment; and (5) whether the party previously has amended its pleadings. Bonin v. Calderon,

Case 3:02-cv-03894-CRB Document 86 Filed 11/07/05 Page 2 of 6
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

Case No. C 02-03894 JF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

(JFLC1)

59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995). The Court has discretion in decided whether to grant leave to

amend, but it “‘must be guided by the underlying purpose of Rule 15–to facilitate decision on the

merits rather than on the pleadings or technicalities.’” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833

F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987) (quoting United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir.1981)).

Whyman suggests that the Court should measure the delay in seeking leave to amend

from October 21, 2005, the date that parties agreed upon as the hearing date for the amendment

of pleadings. Whyman notes that Sodexho did not object to this date when it was discussed at

the June 10, 2005 case management conference. Thus, Whyman argues that there was only a

“slight delay” between October 21 and November 4, when the hearing on the instant motion was

held. Whyman’s conception of delay is overly narrow. Instead, the Court must consider the

entire context of the litigation when it considers the issue of delay. Contrary to Whyman’s

statement that there has been only a “slight delay,” there has in fact been a delay of over three

and a half years since the filing of the original complaint. However, the parties were engaged in

settlement discussions for a good portion of this time and the parties agreed to a scheduling order

on June 10, 2005, only four months before the instant motion was filed.

Parties agree that undue delay on its own does not justify denial of a motion for leave to

amend. However, if undue delay is accompanied by prejudice to the defendant, denial of a

motion for leave to amend may be justified. See, e.g., Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 758-59

(9th Cir. 1999). Sodexho argues that it would be prejudiced by the proposed amendments to the

complaint at this stage in the instant litigation because they would significantly expand the scope

of the case only weeks before discovery deadlines and less than three months before trial. The

original complaint alleges two claims, strict liability and negligence, against both named

Defendants and Does 1-30. The amended complaint alleges four claims. The first and second of

these claims, for strict and negligent product liability, are alleged only against Hamilton Beach. 

The third and fourth, for negligence and premises liability, are alleged only against Sodexho. 

Sodexho points out that the allegations against it in the amended complaint are

substantively different than those in the original complaint. The original complaint alleges that

Sodexho “negligently, intentionally and recklessly maintained the Toaster.” The amended

Case 3:02-cv-03894-CRB Document 86 Filed 11/07/05 Page 3 of 6
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

Case No. C 02-03894 JF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

(JFLC1)

complaint alleges premises liability, specifically alleging that Sodexho was “negligent in the

inspection of the subject property for electrical hazards, electrical wiring and electrical circuitry,

use of electrical appliances, maintenance and use of the property. Defendants breached their duty

of care to keep the property in a reasonably safe condition.” Where previously the allegations of

negligence were restricted to the toaster itself, now the allegations extend to the entire premises. 

Because the new allegations would expand the scope of litigation, Sodexho argues that

Defendants would have to conduct further discovery and, depending on the results of that

discovery, possibly join Hewlett Packard as a defendant. Whyman suggests that there is “no

‘prejudice’ when all of the information necessary to prepare is in defendant’s possession.” 

However, it is not necessarily clear that Sodexho possesses all of the information necessary to

prepare a defense to the claim of premises liability – the buildings were never owned by

Sodexho, it has been four and a half years since the alleged injury, and the Aruba café is now

closed. 

Whyman also argues that the scope of the allegations has always been broader than the

maintenance of the toaster itself; it has always included the related factor of how the nearby

microwave contributed to the electrocution and any negligence claim itself may include aspects

of premises liability. Despite the previous inclusion of allegations relating to the microwave and

some discovery related to the premises more generally, the Court agrees with Sodexho that the

inclusion of allegations about the electrical wiring and circuitry and the general maintenance and

use of the property does expand the scope of the allegations and the facts related to the

allegations. 

The Court recognizes that it has been a relatively long time since the original complaint

was filed and that granting the instant motion will expand the scope of the allegations and the

related discovery and litigation work. However, a good portion of the time since the original

complaint was filed was consumed with settlement negotiations rather than active litigation and

motions for leave to amend should be granted liberally in the interest of deciding cases on their

merits. Accordingly, the Court will grant the instant motion for leave to file an amended

complaint, but will do so without prejudice to motions that may arise out of the difficulties of

Case 3:02-cv-03894-CRB Document 86 Filed 11/07/05 Page 4 of 6
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

Case No. C 02-03894 JF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

(JFLC1)

conducting discovery so long after the alleged injury occurred.

IV. ORDER

Good cause therefore appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the instant motion for

leave to file an amended complaint is GRANTED without prejudice to motions that may arise

out of the difficulties of conducting discovery so long after the alleged injury occurred. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all presently scheduled trial and related pre-trial dates

are vacated. A case management conference is scheduled for January 13, 2005, at which time the

parties and the Court will agree upon a new schedule. Parties are directed to submit a new case

management statement prior to the case management conference.

DATED: November 7, 2005

/s/ electronic signature authorized 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 3:02-cv-03894-CRB Document 86 Filed 11/07/05 Page 5 of 6
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

Case No. C 02-03894 JF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Donald W. Carlson dcarlson@ccplaw.com, mjones@ccplaw.com;

kamnott@ccplaw.com; strumbull@ccplaw.com

Brian Doster Chase, Esq bchase@bestattorney.com

Daniel J. Kelly dkelly@hbblaw.com, lkyne@hbblaw.com

Gavan R. Munter gmunter@spt.com, vwatkins@spt.com

Seema A. Savur

Patrick R. McMahon

485 North First St.

San Jose, CA 95112-4041

Case 3:02-cv-03894-CRB Document 86 Filed 11/07/05 Page 6 of 6