Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-3_19-cv-00059/USCOURTS-akd-3_19-cv-00059-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 120
Nature of Suit: Marine Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1333 Admiralty

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

CLINTON HODGES and GERRI 

HODGES,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SEWARD SHIP’S ACE HARDWARE 

& MARINE, 

Defendant.

Case No. 3:19-cv-0059-SLG

ORDER RE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Before the Court at Docket 13 is Plaintiffs Clinton Hodges and Gerri Hodges’ 

Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint. Defendant Seward Ship’s Ace 

Hardware & Marine (“Ace Hardware”) responded in opposition at Docket 15. 

Plaintiffs replied at Docket 16. Oral argument was not requested and was not 

necessary to the Court’s determination.

BACKGROUND

On March 4, 2019, Plaintiffs commenced this action against 

Defendant Ace Hardware alleging that Plaintiffs’ sailing vessel, HORIZONS,

sustained damages while stored in Defendant’s boatyard when it fell from supports

that were “improperly placed and maintained.”1 In their complaint, Plaintiffs

 

1 Docket 1 at 1, ¶ 1. 

Case 3:19-cv-00059-SLG Document 19 Filed 01/17/20 Page 1 of 7
Case No. 3:19-cv-0059-SLG, Hodges, et al. v. Seward Ship’s Ace Hardware & Marine

Order re Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint 

Page 2 of 7

asserted four causes of action: breach of contract, breach of bailment, negligence, 

and gross negligence, and designated the claims as in admiralty.

2

 

On December 9, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a notice of withdrawal and substitution 

of counsel.3 The following day, Plaintiffs filed the pending motion for leave to file 

a first amended complaint seeking to add a cause of action pursuant to the Alaska 

Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act, AS 45.50.471 (“UTPA”) and 

factual allegations in support thereof.

4

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Under the Court’s local rules, unless otherwise ordered, “[m]otions to amend 

pleadings or add parties must be filed not later than 60 days after the date the 

Pretrial Scheduling Order is entered.”5 Thereafter, “a party may seek leave of the 

court to modify this deadline” under Rule 16(b).6 Under Rule 16(b), a court’s 

pretrial scheduling order can only be modified “for good cause.”7 The “good cause” 

inquiry “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.”8 

While “prejudice to the party opposing the modification might supply additional 

 

2 Docket 1 at 1, 4–6.

3 Docket 12. 

4 Docket 13. 

5 L. Civ. R. 16.1(c)(2). 

6 L. Civ. R. 16.1(c)(2). 

7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see also Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607–08 

(9th Cir. 1992).

8 Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d at 609. 

Case 3:19-cv-00059-SLG Document 19 Filed 01/17/20 Page 2 of 7
Case No. 3:19-cv-0059-SLG, Hodges, et al. v. Seward Ship’s Ace Hardware & Marine

Order re Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint 

Page 3 of 7

reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s 

reasons for seeking modification . . . [and] [i]f that party was not diligent, the inquiry 

should end.”9 

DISCUSSION 

Although Plaintiffs moved to amend under Rule 15(a), the deadline to amend 

the pleadings was July 1, 2019, and Plaintiffs’ motion is untimely. Instead, the 

Court will evaluate Plaintiffs’ request under Rule 16(b)’s good cause requirement 

for modification of the pretrial scheduling order.10

Plaintiffs contend that the proposed amendments to the complaint “are 

primarily to add a cause of action pursuant to the Alaska Unfair Trade Practices 

and Consumer Protection Act . . . and to ensure the factual predicate” thereunder.11

Plaintiffs maintain that the new cause of action “arises from the same set of facts 

as the previously alleged contract and tort claims” and that the only deadline that 

will be affected by the proposed amendment is the deadline for deposition of lay 

witnesses.12 

Defendant opposes the proposed amendments, asserting that Plaintiffs 

unduly delayed in seeking them and that Defendant would be significantly 

 

9

Id.

10 The Court entered the parties’ Scheduling Order on May 2, 2019, therefore, the deadline to 

amend the pleadings was July 1, 2019. 

11 Docket 13 at 2. 

12 Docket 13 at 1–2. 

Case 3:19-cv-00059-SLG Document 19 Filed 01/17/20 Page 3 of 7
Case No. 3:19-cv-0059-SLG, Hodges, et al. v. Seward Ship’s Ace Hardware & Marine

Order re Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint 

Page 4 of 7

prejudiced as a result.

13

 Defendant contends that Plaintiffs have failed to offer any 

explanation for their delay in seeking the amendments, noting that the newly 

alleged facts were known to Plaintiffs as of the original complaint.14 Defendant 

maintains that allowing the proposed amendments advancing “an entirely new 

legal theory” and requiring “proof of different facts” would necessitate relitigating 

discovery.15 Specifically, Defendant emphasizes that the parties have already 

completed extensive discovery, including written requests and responses, have

scheduled depositions, and were approaching the January 13, 2020 lay witness 

discovery deadline (since passed).

16 Finally, Defendant contends that the 

amendment would be futile as “the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction . . . [and]

Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the exculpatory clause in their contract.”17 

Plaintiffs dispute that they unduly delayed in seeking the amendment,

explaining that only when their current counsel took over for his departing 

colleague did he realize that the alleged facts also gave rise to a cause of action 

under the UTPA.

18

 Plaintiffs’ new counsel maintains that he “promptly obtained 

 

13 Docket 15 at 1. 

14 Docket 15 at 9. 

15 Docket 15 at 7. 

16 Docket 15 at 7. 

17 Docket 15 at 9–10. 

18 Docket 16 at 7.

Case 3:19-cv-00059-SLG Document 19 Filed 01/17/20 Page 4 of 7
Case No. 3:19-cv-0059-SLG, Hodges, et al. v. Seward Ship’s Ace Hardware & Marine

Order re Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint 

Page 5 of 7

client approval for and filed the Motion and proposed First Amended Complaint.”19 

Plaintiffs contend that Defendant will not be prejudiced as the scheduled fact 

depositions had not yet occurred20 and maintain that Plaintiffs would supplement

their discovery responses as necessary.21 Moreover, Plaintiffs add that the 

amendment is not futile as the Court has admiralty jurisdiction over the contract 

claims and could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the proposed UTPA 

claim.

22

 Finally, Plaintiffs contend that the exculpatory provision in the parties’ 

agreement should not be enforced with respect to Defendant’s own negligence.23

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have not been the model of diligence, and 

recognizes that the parties have engaged in significant discovery. However, the 

Court nevertheless finds that there is good cause to amend the scheduling order 

to allow Plaintiffs’ proposed amendments to the complaint.24 Plaintiffs’ new 

counsel was diligent in seeking the amendment once he took over the matter, and

the Court finds that Plaintiffs should be given a reasonable opportunity to address

all of their potential claims against Defendant arising from the same set of alleged 

 

19 Docket 17 at 2, ¶ 4 (Reilly Decl.). 

20 According to Plaintiffs, two fact depositions were scheduled for early January, and a third fact 

deposition had yet to be scheduled. Docket 16 at 6. 

21 Docket 16 at 6. 

22 Docket 16 at 3–5. 

23 Docket 16 at 3–5. 

24 The Court expresses no opinion at this time as to the viability of the UTPA claim as pled in the 

proposed amended complaint. 

Case 3:19-cv-00059-SLG Document 19 Filed 01/17/20 Page 5 of 7
Case No. 3:19-cv-0059-SLG, Hodges, et al. v. Seward Ship’s Ace Hardware & Marine

Order re Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint 

Page 6 of 7

facts. Moreover, although Defendant emphasizes the imminence of the January 

13, 2020 “deadline for lay witness discovery,” the close of fact discovery is not until 

March 23, 2020.25 The parties still have time to supplement their discovery as 

necessary to account for the amendment before the close of fact discovery. 

However, to avoid any potential prejudice to Defendant, the Court will extend the 

Final Discovery Witness List deadline to February 21, 2020. 

Finally, the Court is cognizant of its “independent obligation to determine 

whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from 

a party.”

26

 However, as Defendant indicated its intent to file a motion to dismiss 

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the Court will decide the issue when both 

parties have had an opportunity to brief their positions. 

CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File First Amended 

Complaint at Docket 13 is GRANTED. Plaintiff must file an additional complete, 

clean copy of the amended pleading, including any exhibits, within 7 days of this 

order.27 The Scheduling and Planning Order at Docket 10 is amended as follows: 

II. Discovery Plan C. Subjects and Timing of Discovery 3. Final Discovery Witness 

List: a final discovery witness list, disclosing all lay witnesses that a party may wish 

 

25 Docket 10 at 3. 

26 Corall v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 989 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Arbaugh v. 

Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006)). 

27 See Local R. Civ. P. 15.1(b). 

Case 3:19-cv-00059-SLG Document 19 Filed 01/17/20 Page 6 of 7
Case No. 3:19-cv-0059-SLG, Hodges, et al. v. Seward Ship’s Ace Hardware & Marine

Order re Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint 

Page 7 of 7

to call at trial either by live testimony or deposition, shall be served and filed not 

later than: February 21, 2020. All other deadlines shall remain as previously 

ordered at Docket 10. 

DATED this 17th day of January, 2020, at Anchorage, Alaska.

/s/ Sharon L. Gleason

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:19-cv-00059-SLG Document 19 Filed 01/17/20 Page 7 of 7