Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00997/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00997-2/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 RE: MOTION TO DISMISS 

AND REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO 

AMEND COMPLAINT

----oo0oo----

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

requests the court grant leave to amend the operative complaint. 

(See Opp’n (Docket No. 21) at 35.) A party seeking amendment 

must show that the amendment is proper under Rule 15, see Johnson 

v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992) 

(citations omitted), under which leave to amend should be given 

“freely . . . when justice so requires,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

15(a)(2). Leave should be denied only if amendment (1) would 

cause prejudice to the opposing party, (2) is sought in bad 

Case 2:22-cv-00997-WBS-DMC Document 23 Filed 09/27/23 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

faith, (3) would create undue delay, or (4) is futile. Chudacoff 

v. Univ. Med. Ctr. of S. Nev., 649 F.3d 1143, 1152 (9th Cir. 

2011) (citation omitted). “[I]f a court finds that good cause 

exists, it should then deny a motion for leave to amend only if 

such amendment would be futile.” J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. 

Maravilla, 2:12-cv-2899 WBS EFB, 2013 WL 4780764, at *1 (E.D. 

Cal. Sept. 5, 2013).

Plaintiff’s request is based on the ground that 

subsequent events since filing the initial complaint provide good 

cause for amendment, including various decisions by the Alameda 

County Superior Court and the California New Motor Vehicle Board 

that resolved issues relevant to the instant motion to dismiss. 

(Opp’n at 35.) Plaintiff attaches redlined and clean copies of 

its proposed amended complaint. (See id. Exs. 7, 8.) Defendant 

opposes the request on the ground that amendment would be futile. 

(Reply (Docket No. 22) at 14-15.)

The court cannot conclude that plaintiff’s proposed 

amendments are necessary futile because they bear directly on the 

nature of plaintiff’s contractual obligations to defendant, and 

whether plaintiff was in material breach of those obligations. 

Further, they allege events postdating the initial complaint 

which form plaintiff’s basis for expanding the scope of 

attorneys’ fees requested. Finally, the court sees no reasons

why granting leave to amend would prejudice defendant, and 

defendant identifies none. Upon amendment, defendant is free to 

challenge the legal sufficiency of plaintiff’s claims, amended or 

otherwise. 

Good cause appearing, and because amendment would not 

Case 2:22-cv-00997-WBS-DMC Document 23 Filed 09/27/23 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

be futile, plaintiff’s request to file its amended complaint is 

hereby GRANTED. See Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609; J & J Sports 

Prods., 2013 WL 4780764, at *1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss 

(Docket No. 20) is hereby DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot, and 

the hearing set for October 2, 2023 is hereby VACATED. Plaintiff 

is directed to file its amended complaint within ten days of the 

issuance of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 27, 2023

Case 2:22-cv-00997-WBS-DMC Document 23 Filed 09/27/23 Page 3 of 3