Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03927/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03927-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 340
Nature of Suit: Marine Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1333 Admiralty

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN HINSHAW,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE VESSEL, M/V AURORA, and AL BOURAQ

AVIATION, INC., a Delaware

Corporation,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-3927 CW

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF'S

AMENDED MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE

FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff John Hinshaw moves for leave to file his first

amended complaint. Defendants M/V Aurora (the Vessel) and Al

Bouraq Aviation, Inc. oppose this motion. The matter was submitted

on the papers. Having considered all of the papers filed by the

parties and oral argument, the Court grants Plaintiff's motion.

BACKGROUND

On February 17, 2006, Plaintiff filed notice of his motion for

leave to file his first amended complaint. He sought to add new

Case 4:05-cv-03927-CW Document 59 Filed 05/12/06 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

claims for conversion and replevin arising out of the alleged

taking of his personal property from the Vessel, and a new cause of

action to recover under an agreement between the parties for

payment of a commission related to a possible sale of the Vessel. 

In addition, Plaintiff sought to amend his complaint to set forth

more accurately the amount and nature of the claims he previously

plead.

On March 9, Plaintiff filed his Amended Motion to File First

Amended Complaint with Consent of Defendants. He attached a new

version of his proposed first amended complaint, dropping the new

claims. Plaintiff's counsel stated that Defendants agreed to

consent to the filing of a first amended complaint, provided that

it was the complaint attached to the amended motion, and not the

one attached to his original notice of motion for leave to amend. 

Plaintiff does not include a summary of the proposed changes to his

original complaint. The changes appear to be expanding the

allegations in Paragraph 7, alleging that his damages are $191,952

plus interest, not $148,888 plus interest and substituting 46

U.S.C. § 10313 for 46 U.S.C. §§ 596 and 597, which Defendants note

are expired provisions. 

The next day, Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiff's

amended motion for leave to amend. Acknowledging that Plaintiff

had filed a new first amended complaint the day before, Defendants

stated that they still opposed the motion because the Vessel is a

"dead ship" and was never "in navigation" during the period in

question and therefore this Court lacks jurisdiction. 

On April 14, 2006, following the parties' stipulation to

Case 4:05-cv-03927-CW Document 59 Filed 05/12/06 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

continue the hearing on Plaintiff's motion, Plaintiff filed his

reply brief. In addition, he submitted a third version of his

proposed first amended complaint. Plaintiff's counsel explained,

Based on events and circumstances occurring since the

original motion herein for leave to amend was filed,

coupled with the contention of defendant [sic] that the

allegations of jurisdiction were lacking in the proposed

First Amended Complaint (based principally on facts

outside the scope of the proposed First Amended

Complaint), I have prepared, on behalf of Plaintiff, a

NEW proposed First Amended Complaint which Plaintiff now

seeks to file, a copy of which is attached . . . . The

new proposed amended complaint adds specific allegations

stating that the court has diversity of citizenship

jurisdiction, and it also now adds a new count for

declaratory relief based on an oral agreement between the

parties to pay my client commissions of 10% upon sale of

the subject vessel.

Sharif Dec. (emphasis in original).

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that leave of

the court allowing a party to amend its pleading "shall be freely

given when justice so requires." Leave to amend lies within the

sound discretion of the trial court, which discretion "must be

guided by the underlying purpose of Rule 15 to facilitate decision

on the merits, rather than on the pleadings or technicalities." 

United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981) (citations

omitted). Thus, Rule 15's policy of favoring amendments to

pleadings should be applied with "extreme liberality." Id.; DCD

Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987).

DISCUSSION

As noted above, Plaintiff has submitted three proposed first

amended complaints, all different. The Court will not consider the

one included with Plaintiff's reply. It will consider only the

Case 4:05-cv-03927-CW Document 59 Filed 05/12/06 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

proposed amended complaint submitted with Plaintiff's amended

motion for leave to file a first amended complaint with consent of

Defendants. If Plaintiff wishes to add a new claim for declaratory

relief, he must file another motion for leave to amend. 

The Supreme Court has identified four factors relevant to

whether a motion for leave to amend should be denied: undue delay,

bad faith or dilatory motive, futility of amendment, and prejudice

to the opposing party. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 

The Ninth Circuit holds that these factors are not of equal weight;

specifically, delay alone is insufficient ground for denying leave

to amend. Webb, 655 F.2d at 980. But, as Defendants note,

"Futility of amendment can, by itself, justify the denial of a

motion for leave to amend." Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845

(9th Cir. 1995).

Defendants argue that Plaintiff's amendment to the complaint

would be futile and thus his motion for leave to amend must be

denied. The Ninth Circuit instructs that "a proposed amendment is

futile only if no set of facts can be proved under the amendment to

the pleadings that would constitute a valid and sufficient claim or

defense." Miller v. Rykoff-Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th

Cir. 1988); see also SAES Getters S.p.A. v. Aeronex, Inc., 219 F.

Supp. 2d 1081, 1086 (S.D. Cal. 2002)("an amendment is 'futile' only

if it would clearly be subject to dismissal").

Here, as Plaintiff notes, Defendants' argument that this Court

does not have jurisdiction is based on facts that were not alleged

in the original complaint or the first amended complaint. 

Defendants contend that the Vessel is a "dead ship" and therefore

Case 4:05-cv-03927-CW Document 59 Filed 05/12/06 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

not subject to admiralty or maritime law. See Robert E. Blake Inc.

v. Excel Env't, 104 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 1997). Whether the Vessel

is a dead ship, however, is a factually disputed issue. Thus,

Plaintiff's amendment may not be futile.

Furthermore, even assuming that the Court lacks admiralty

jurisdiction, Plaintiff alleges, in his original and first amended

complaints, that he is a citizen of Washington and that Defendant

Al Bouraq Aviation is a citizen of Delaware and that the amount in

controversy exceeds $75,0000. If a complaint provides facts

showing jurisdiction, the failure to reference the specific code

section -- here, 28 U.S.C. § 1332 -- does not subject the complaint

to dismissal. For example, in Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v.

Liberatore, 408 F.3d 1158, 1162 (9th Cir. 2005), the court found

that, because the existence of federal subject-matter jurisdiction

was readily discernable from the face of the complaint, the

district court did not err by denying the government's motion to

dismiss, even though the plaintiff failed to plead an independent

basis for federal jurisdiction. The court noted, "Although it is

preferable that a district court require formal amendment of a

defective complaint, formal amendment is not required when the

reviewing court can readily recognize the existence of

jurisdiction." Id. at n.2 (inner citations omitted). 

Plaintiff's amendments to his original complaint are not

clearly subject to dismissal; they are not futile. Nor are they

brought in bad faith with undue delay. Defendants do not argue 

prejudice. DCD Programs, 833 F.2d at 186 (party opposing the

motion bears the burden of showing prejudice). Therefore, the

Case 4:05-cv-03927-CW Document 59 Filed 05/12/06 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Court grants Plaintiff's amended motion for leave to amend.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Amended Motion to File

First Amended Complaint with Consent of Defendants (Docket No. 48)

is GRANTED. Plaintiff is granted leave to file the first amended

complaint that was included with his amended motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 5/12/06

 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-03927-CW Document 59 Filed 05/12/06 Page 6 of 6