Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01551/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01551-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 340
Nature of Suit: Marine Personal Injury
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN CARSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SEASPAN CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-01551-JSC 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

Re: Dkt. No. 25

Plaintiff Steven Carson filed this action in the Alameda County Superior Court against 

Defendants CMA CGM (America) LLC, Seaspan Corporation, and Seaspan Ship Management 

Ltd. alleging negligence and products liability claims after he was injured loading containers onto 

a vessel owned by Defendants. Seaspan Corporation and Seaspan Ship Management Ltd. then

removed the action to this Court based on federal diversity jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 1.) The Court 

thereafter granted Homeport Insurance Company, who paid Plaintiff’s workers’ compensation 

benefits following the incident, leave to intervene. (Dkt. No. 20.) Plaintiff’s motion to amend the 

complaint to add Cargotec Oyj, MacGregor Germany GmbH, Cargotec Holding, Inc., and 

Cargotec Crane & Electrical Services, Inc. as additional defendants in this action is now pending 

before the Court.

1

 (Dkt. No. 25.) None of the current Defendants has filed an opposition to the 

motion. After carefully considering Plaintiff’s brief and the relevant legal authority, the Court 

concludes that oral argument is unnecessary, see Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and GRANTS the unopposed 

motion to amend.

 

1 All parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(c). (Dkt. Nos. 6, 7, 22.)

Case 3:19-cv-01551-JSC Document 28 Filed 12/13/19 Page 1 of 4
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) states that a party may amend a pleading before 

trial “with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave” and that the “court should 

freely give leave when justice so requires.” Though Rule 15(a) is “very liberal ... a district court 

need not grant leave to amend where the amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is 

sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue delay in litigation; or (4) is futile.” AmerisourceBergen 

Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006). Undue delay cannot alone justify 

the denial of a motion to amend. Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 

712–13 (9th Cir. 2001). The most important factor is prejudice to the opposing party. Zenith Radio 

Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 330–31 (1971). A “determination should be 

performed with all inferences in favor of granting the motion.” Griggs v. Pace Am. Group, Inc., 

170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999).

Here, Plaintiff seeks leave to amend the complaint to add Cargotec Oyj, MacGregor 

Germany GmbH, Cargotec Holding, Inc., and Cargotec Crane & Electrical Services, Inc. because 

recently produced documents indicate that these entities were involved in the manufacturing of the 

container stacking cones involved in Plaintiff’s accident. (Dkt. No. 25-1 at ¶¶ 4-10.) Plaintiff 

contends that amendment is necessary so that Plaintiff can fully litigate his claims, and 

particularly, his product liability claim, and no party will be prejudiced by amendment.

The Court agrees that leave to amend is proper here. First, there is no evidence of material

prejudice to Defendants. See Owens, 244 F.3d at 712 (finding appellants suffered no prejudice 

when appellee amended its answer because there was no delay in proceedings or required 

additional discovery). Fact discovery does not close for over three months, and Defendants have 

not identified any discovery that has been conducted that has to be redone. While the addition of 

new defendants may require that the trial date or other deadlines be moved, Defendants have not 

objected to such a possibility.

Second, there is no evidence of bad faith. See Owens, 244 F.3d at 712 (finding no evidence 

of bad faith because Appellee offered “substantial competent evidence” as to why it delayed in 

filing a motion to amend). Plaintiff has moved to amend to add parties necessary to his products 

Case 3:19-cv-01551-JSC Document 28 Filed 12/13/19 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

liability claim. 

Third, there is no evidence of undue delay. Plaintiff received documents on July 29 and 

September 3, 2019 from the Seaspan entities which indicated that a company named Macgregor 

was the manufacturer of the container stacking cones involved in the accident. (Dkt. No. 25-1 at ¶

4.) Upon further investigation, Plaintiff discovered that Macgregor appeared to be part of another 

company called Cargotec which was headquartered in Finland under the name Cargotec Oja. (Id. 

at ¶¶ 5-7.) Cargotec Oja appears to do business in the United States through Cargotec Holding, 

Inc. a Delaware corporation, and Cargotec Crane & Electrical Services Inc., a Nevada corporation. 

(Id. at ¶ 7.) Additional documents produced on September 3, 2019 indicate that there is a 

Macgregor entity called MacGregor Germany GmbH. (Id. at ¶ 10.) Plaintiff thereafter sought the 

parties’ stipulation to amendment, but they have not agreed, and he moved to amend before the 

deadline to do so had passed. (Id. at ¶ 11.) See Owens, 244 F.3d at 712–13 (finding no 

unreasonable delay because appellee moved to amend as soon as it became aware of an applicable 

defense).

Finally, “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.” 

Sweaney v. Ada County, 119 F.3d 1385, 1393 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal quotations omitted). Here, 

there is nothing to suggest that amendment of Plaintiff’s complaint to add these defendants would 

be futile. 

Accordingly, the balance of factors supports granting Plaintiff leave to amend under Rule 

15(a)(2).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to amend to add Cargotec Oyj, 

MacGregor Germany GmbH, Cargotec Holding, Inc., and Cargotec Crane & Electrical Services, 

Inc. as defendants is GRANTED. (Dkt. No. 25.) Plaintiff shall file the proposed amended 

complaint within 3 business days.

//

//

Case 3:19-cv-01551-JSC Document 28 Filed 12/13/19 Page 3 of 4
4

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 13, 2019

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:19-cv-01551-JSC Document 28 Filed 12/13/19 Page 4 of 4