Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00997/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00997-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Courtesy Automotive Group, Inc.
Counter Defendant
Courtesy Subaru of Chico
Plaintiff
Subaru of America, Inc.
Counter Claimant

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

----oo0oo---- 

COURTESY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC., dba COURTESY SUBARU OF CHICO, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC. and DOES 

1-50, inclusive, 

 Defendant. 

No. 2:22-cv-00997 WBS DMC

ORDER 

SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., 

 Counterclaimant, 

 v. 

COURTESY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC., 

dba COURTESY SUBARU OF CHICO, 

 Counterdefendant. 

----oo0oo---- 

Plaintiff Courtesy Automotive Group, Inc. (“Courtesy”) 

has filed motions to dismiss defendant Subaru of America, Inc.’s 

(“Subaru”) first amended counterclaim (Docket No. 44); to 

Case 2:22-cv-00997-WBS-DMC Document 55 Filed 08/08/24 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

retroactively extend time to file a responsive pleading to 

Subaru’s first amended counterclaim (Docket No. 45); and to amend 

its own first amended complaint (Docket No. 47). 

The relevant procedural history is set forth in the 

court’s prior orders (see Docket Nos. 30, 42), and will not be 

recited in detail here. 

I. Motion to Extend Time to File Responsive Pleading 

Subaru filed its First Amended Counterclaim on May 9, 

2024. (See FACC (Docket No. 43).) Courtesy’s deadline to file a 

response was May 23. On May 30, Courtesy filed a motion to 

dismiss the First Amended Counterclaim (Docket No. 44), along 

with a motion requesting a retroactive seven-day extension to 

file the motion (Docket No. 45). Courtesy asserts that its delay 

was good faith excusable neglect (see Docket No. 45); Subaru 

argues that Courtesy failed to show its delay was inadvertent 

(see Docket No. 50). 

The court concludes that Courtesy’s delay was excusable 

neglect. “Excusable neglect ‘encompass[es] situations in which 

the failure to comply with a filing deadline is attributable to 

negligence’ and includes ‘omissions caused by carelessness.’” 

Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(citing Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd., 507 

U.S. 380, 394, 388 (1993)). “The determination of whether 

neglect is excusable is at bottom an equitable one, taking 

account of all relevant circumstances surrounding the party's 

omission. To determine when neglect is excusable, we conduct the 

equitable analysis specified in Pioneer by examining at least 

four factors: (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; 

Case 2:22-cv-00997-WBS-DMC Document 55 Filed 08/08/24 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

(2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the 

proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the 

movant acted in good faith.” Id. (citations omitted). 

All four factors counsel towards excusing Courtesy’s 

delay here. Regarding the first two factors, the court cannot 

discern any substantial prejudice to Subaru or any delay to the 

proceedings before the court resulting from Courtesy’s missed 

deadline, especially since the parties, back in late May, 

conferred about Courtesy’s motion to dismiss and agreed upon a 

hearing date of August 5. (See Docket No. 45-1 ¶¶ 6-7.) 

Regarding the remaining two factors, Courtesy satisfactorily 

documents that its counsel’s delay in filing the motion to 

dismiss was an elementary, but sincere, mistake that was not 

caught in time.1 (See id. ¶¶ 5, 13 (counsel confusing deadlines 

set forth by Fed. Rs. Civ. P. 12 and 15).) 

Accordingly, the court will not deny Courtesy’s motion 

to dismiss on this basis. 

II. Motion to Dismiss 

Courtesy argues that Subaru’s First Amended 

Counterclaim should be dismissed because it is inconsistent with 

the conditions under which the court gave Subaru leave to amend. 

1 Subaru suggests that Courtesy’s instant motion for 

leave to amend its First Amended Complaint demonstrates 

Courtesy’s disregard for the court’s deadlines. (See generally 

Docket No. 50.) A motion requesting leave to amend does no such 

thing. Rather, it asks for permission to amend notwithstanding 

expired deadlines to amend by right. (Cf. FACC (Subaru amending 

counterclaims without seeking leave to do so, in contravention of 

court’s previously set conditions under which amendment shall be 

permitted).) 

Case 2:22-cv-00997-WBS-DMC Document 55 Filed 08/08/24 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

4

(See Mot. (Docket No. 44) at 7.) The court agrees. 

 Subaru previously asserted two counterclaims: a breach 

of contract counterclaim premised on Courtesy’s alleged breach of 

a confidentiality provision; and a cognate declaratory relief 

counterclaim regarding the same allegations. (See Docket No. 

35.) On April 19, 2024, the court dismissed both counterclaims. 

(Docket No. 42.) The court gave Subaru twenty days’ leave to 

amend its first counterclaim “if, and only if, it can properly 

allege actual effects of [Courtesy’s alleged breach of the 

confidentiality provision] . . . .”2 (Id. at 5.)3

Twenty days later, Subaru filed an amended counterclaim 

premised on an entirely different breach of contract theory: 

Courtesy’s failure to pay Subaru its attorneys’ fees incurred in 

relation to a separate administrative investigation. (FACC ¶ 1.) 

Subaru has no grounds on which to file the instant counterclaim: 

it does not allege any effects resulting from Courtesy’s alleged 

breach of the agreement’s confidentiality provision; its time to 

plead a new and different counterclaim by right has long since 

passed; and it neither sought nor was granted leave to plead the 

new claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)-(2). 

Accordingly, the court will dismiss Subaru’s First 

2 The court dismissed the declaratory relief counterclaim 

with prejudice because it was wholly duplicative of the breach of 

contract counterclaim. (See Docket No. 42 at 5.) 

3 The court’s Order of April 19 mistakenly referred to 

Subaru’s, rather than Courtesy’s, alleged breach of the 

confidentiality provision. (See Docket No. 42 at 5:9.) The 

court apologizes for any confusion this may have created. 

Case 2:22-cv-00997-WBS-DMC Document 55 Filed 08/08/24 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

Amended Counterclaim.4 5 While dismissal will be without 

prejudice at this time, Subaru is admonished to follow the 

court’s orders carefully if it intends to move for further leave 

to amend. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Courtesy’s motion to 

extend time to file responsive pleading to first amended 

counterclaim (Docket No. 45) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Courtesy’s motion to dismiss 

Subaru’s first amended counterclaim (Docket No. 44) be, and the 

same hereby is, GRANTED. Subaru’s First Amended Counterclaim 

(Docket No. 43) is DISMISSED without prejudice. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Courtesy’s motion for leave 

to amend first amended complaint (Docket No. 47) be, and the same 

hereby is, DENIED as moot. 

Dated: August 8, 2024 

4 The court therefore need not address Courtesy’s other 

arguments in support of dismissal. 

5 Courtesy’s remaining motion to amend its First Amended 

Complaint (Docket No. 47) is conditioned on the court denying 

Courtesy’s motion to dismiss. (See Docket No. 47 at 2 (“To the 

extent the Court grants Courtesy’s Motion to Dismiss, Courtesy 

withdraws this Motion.”).) Accordingly, the court will deny this 

motion as moot. 

Case 2:22-cv-00997-WBS-DMC Document 55 Filed 08/08/24 Page 5 of 5