Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_07-cv-00226/USCOURTS-azd-4_07-cv-00226-0/pdf.json

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

OfficeMax Incorporated.,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Mercedes and Rudy Flores, wife and

husband; Gregor Floyd and Rachel Floyd,

husband and wife; and Business Furniture

Solutions, Incorporated, a foreign

corporation, d.b.a. Vanguard Legato

Group,

Defendants. 

_________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 07-226-TUC-CKJ (GEE)

ORDER 

Pending before the court is the plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint filed on

November 27, 2007. [doc. # 67] The defendant, Business Furniture Solutions, Inc., filed a

response. The plaintiff, Office Max, filed a reply. 

Also pending is a Business Furniture Solutions’ motion to strike the plaintiff’s reply

or, in the alternative, motion to permit a sur-reply. [doc. # 77] Office Max filed a response

or, in the alternative, motion to permit a sur-reply. [doc. # 80] 

The plaintiff, Office Max, claims its former sales agent, Mercedes Flores, fraudulently

misappropriated its trade secrets when she left to work for one of its competitors, the

defendant, Business Furniture Solutions. Office Max moves that the court permit it to amend

the complaint pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 15 to include an additional defendant, Business

Products Group, Inc., doing business as Business Resource Group (BRG). 

Case 4:07-cv-00226-CKJ-GEE Document 83 Filed 02/06/08 Page 1 of 3
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 -

The case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Edmonds for all pretrial matters

pursuant to Local Civil Rule 72.2. Rules of Practice of the U.S. District Court for the District

of Arizona. 

Discussion

“Once a responsive pleading has been filed, as is the case here, a party may amend the

party’s pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave

shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Roth v. Garcia Marquez, 942 F.2d 617, 628

(9th Cir.1991) (internal punctuation removed). When deciding whether to grant the motion,

the court should consider four factors: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing

party, and futility of the amendment. Roth, 942 F.2d at 628. “The denial of a motion for

leave to amend pursuant to Rule 15(a) is reviewed for abuse of discretion and in light of the

strong public policy permitting amendment.” Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th

Cir.1995) (internal punctuation removed), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1051 (1996). 

Office Max seeks to amend its complaint to add an additional defendant, BRG. In its

original complaint, Office Max named BRG as a defendant. After receiving assurances from

BRG’s Chief Financial Officer that the company played no role in Flores’ employment with

Business Furniture Solutions, Office Max amended its complaint and dropped BRG as a

defendant. Since that time, Office Max has discovered information indicating BRG might

be liable after all either directly or vicariously. Office Max moves that the court allow it to

amend the complaint to include BRG again as a defendant.

Business Furniture Solutions argues the amendment would be futile because Office

Max has not provided sufficient evidence to prove BRG is liable in this case. That may be

so, but this action is not yet at the summary judgment stage. Where discovery has yet to be

completed, a motion to amend should not be denied as futile unless the proposed claim would

not survive a motion to dismiss. See Jones v. Community Redevelopment Agency of City of

Los Angeles, 733 F.2d 646, 650-51 (9th Cir. 1984), Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 115 (3rd

Cir. 2000); Rose v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 203 F.3d 417, 420-21 (6th Cir. 2000);

Case 4:07-cv-00226-CKJ-GEE Document 83 Filed 02/06/08 Page 2 of 3
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 -

Glassman v. Computervision Corp., 90 F.3d 617, 623 (1st Cir. 1996). That does not appear

to be the case here. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint filed on

November 27, 2007, is GRANTED. [doc. # 67] The Clerk is instructed to file the lodged

proposed Second Amended Complaint. [doc. # 69] 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Business Furniture Solutions’ motion to strike or,

in the alternative, motion to permit a sur-reply is GRANTED in PART. [doc. # 77] The

filing will be treated as a sur-reply. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Office Max’s motion, in the alternative, to permit

a sur-reply is GRANTED in PART. [doc. # 80] The filing will be treated as a sur-reply.

DATED this 5th day of February, 2008.

Case 4:07-cv-00226-CKJ-GEE Document 83 Filed 02/06/08 Page 3 of 3