Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01082/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01082-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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 - 07cv1082

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT ADAM KENNEDY, an

individual, on behalf of himself, and on

behalf of all persons similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07-CV-1082 H (RBB)

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

AMEND COMPLAINT

vs.

NATURAL BALANCE PET FOODS,

INC., a California corporation; and DOES

1 through 100, inclusive,

Defendant.

This action, which was removed to this Court on June 13, 2007, arises from Plaintiff’s

allegation that defendant Natural Balance Pet Foods, Inc. sold pet food products that contained

foreign-sourced ingredients but were labeled for sale by Defendant as “Made in the USA.”

(Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff’s first amended complaint asserts violations by Defendant of the

Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Cal. Civ. Code § 1770 et seq., and unfair

competition in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. (Doc. No. 18.) Defendant

filed an answer to Plaintiff’s first amended complaint on September 12, 2007. Doc. No. 19.)

 On April 18, 2008, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint. (Doc. Nos. 37,

39.) Defendant filed a response in opposition on May 9, 2008. (Doc. No. 47.) The Court

exercises its discretion pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1) to decide this matter without oral

argument and therefore vacates the hearing scheduled for May 19, 2008. 

Case 3:07-cv-01082-H-RBB Document 49 Filed 05/13/08 Page 1 of 5
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 - 07cv1082

Background

Pursuant to the case management order issued on October 17, 2007, any motion to

amend the pleadings “shall be filed and heard on or before April 21, 2008.” (Doc. No. 23.) 

All interrogatories and requests for the production of documents must be served by May

19, 2008. Plaintiff is to designate the expert witnesses Plaintiff expects to call at trial no

later than May 19, 2008. Defendant must designate the expert witnesses it expects to call at

trial by June 16, 2008. June 30, 2008 is the deadline for supplemental designation of

experts. All discovery shall be completed by July 14, 2008. (See Doc. No. 35.) 

The second amended complaint that Plaintiff seeks leave to file would list additional

products with allegedly false designations of geographic origins and additional foreignsourced components. Plaintiff states that, at the time the first amended complaint was filed,

Plaintiff knew of four products sold by Defendant that contained rice protein concentrate

from China but were labeled for sale as “Made in the USA.” Plaintiff identified those four

products in the FAC. (FAC ¶ 2.) According to Plaintiff, discovery has “confirmed the

existence of” other pet food products made by Defendant that contained other foreignsourced components, including vitamins, taurine, lamb meal and venison meal. As a result,

Plaintiff desires to amend the complaint to list each product, as well as the specific foreignsourced components of those products. Amended in this manner, Plaintiff’s complaint

would list 42 products sold by Defendant.

Plaintiff also seeks to change the definition of the putative class. Currently, the

operative complaint defines the class as follows: “All individuals in the United States who

purchased one or more Natural Balance brand pet food products between May 3, 2003 and

April 17, 2007.” (FAC ¶ 17.) Through discovery Plaintiff has learned that some

consumers who bought Natural Balance brand pet food products have received refunds for

the purchase of those goods. Accordingly, the proposed amended complaint would define

the class to exclude such individuals: “All individuals in the United States who purchased

one or more of the following Natural Balance brand pet food products since May 3, 2003,

excluding from this class those specific purchases of Natural Balance products for which a

Case 3:07-cv-01082-H-RBB Document 49 Filed 05/13/08 Page 2 of 5
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 - 07cv1082

full refund was paid to the consumer.”

In addition to modifying the class definition, Plaintiff’s proposed second amended

complaint would extend the class period by eliminating April 17, 2007, as the end of the

class period. Plaintiff contends that, initially, Defendant stated that sale of the products at

issue ceased on April 17, 2007, which is why Plaintiff’s FAC capped the class at that date. 

According to Plaintiff, the testimony of Defendant’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness has confirmed

that the “Made in USA” label was not removed from Natural Balance brand pet food

products until August of 2007. Finally, Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint modifies

Plaintiff’s claim under the CLRA to include a request for damages. Plaintiff states that

Plaintiff served the requisite statutory notice and Defendant refused to provide the relief

demanded. 

Discussion

Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint. Defendant argues

that the motion is untimely pursuant to the deadline set by the case management order for

motions to amend the pleadings. Defendant also contends that it will suffer prejudice if

Plaintiff is permitted to amend its complaint.

I. Motion to Amend – Legal Standard

Once a responsive pleading has been filed, a party may amend its complaint only

with leave of the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Although Rule 15 instructs that leave to

amend “shall be freely given when justice so requires,” courts deny leave to amend when

the moving party has engaged in undue delay, bad faith or dilatory tactics, where

amendment would result in undue prejudice to the opposing party, or where amendment

would be futile. See Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th

Cir. 2003). “Prejudice is the touchstone of the inquiry under Rule 15(a).” Id.

The Court concludes that, in the circumstances of this case, granting leave to amend

the complaint would result in undue prejudice to Defendant. Shortly before the close of

discovery, Plaintiff seeks to significantly expand the number of products referred to in the

complaint, as well as expand the time period covered by the definition of the putative class. 

Case 3:07-cv-01082-H-RBB Document 49 Filed 05/13/08 Page 3 of 5
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 The Court takes no position on whether an additional case may cover the additional

claims.

- 4 - 07cv1082

Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint also adds a new claim for damages under

Plaintiff’s CLRA claim. Under the current case management order, Defendant would have

a very limited time period within which to conduct discovery as to those new matters. For

example, Defendant would be forced to designate its expert witnesses for trial within days

of the filing of Plaintiff’s amended complaint. Any additional discovery required with

respect to the new matters would need to be completed in less than two months. Moreover,

Defendant would be forced to conduct that discovery, at potentially great expense, without

the opportunity to file Rule 12 or other challenges to the amended pleading. 

The alternative would be to significantly delay discovery and all other pretrial

proceedings in order to allow Defendant to file pleading challenges and, to the extent

necessary, conduct discovery regarding Plaintiff’s second amended complaint. The Court

concludes that this course of action also would result in undue prejudice to Defendant. 

Accordingly, the Court is not persuaded that this case should be significantly disrupted

shortly before the discovery cutoff and related deadlines, particularly in light of the fact

that Plaintiff’s motion to amend is untimely pursuant to the case management order issued

in October of 2007. Rule 15(a) directs courts to grant leave to amend only “when justice so

requires,” and based on all the circumstances of this case, the Court concludes that

amendment is not warranted.1

 Exercising the Court’s discretion, the Court denies

Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to amend the

complaint. The Court notes that Plaintiff’s motion for class certification, filed April 23,

2008, requests certification of a class as defined by Plaintiff’s proposed second amended

complaint. (See Doc. No. 43.) Since the Court denies leave to further amend the

complaint, the Court denies without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion for class certification. 

Within 30 days of the date this order is stamped “filed,” Plaintiff may file a new motion for

Case 3:07-cv-01082-H-RBB Document 49 Filed 05/13/08 Page 4 of 5
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 - 07cv1082

class certification. 

Absent a joint motion or an agreement of the parties embodied in an order of this

Court, the Court declines to order a special briefing schedule for Plaintiff’s motion for class

certification. Accordingly, the Court denies without prejudice Defendant’s ex parte

application for an order setting a briefing schedule and hearing date with respect to that

motion. (Doc. No. 45.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 13, 2008

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:07-cv-01082-H-RBB Document 49 Filed 05/13/08 Page 5 of 5