N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
NIKHIL JHAVERI, an

individual a

nd ELA JHAVER

I, an individual , Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts,
v. ADT SEC UR ITY SER

VIC ES, INC ., De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 12-56201 D.C . No. 2:11-c v-04426-M W FPLA
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia M ic h a e l W . Fitz ge ra ld, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d July

9, 2014 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : SILVER

M AN, TALLM AN, a

nd R AW L INSON, C irc uit Judge s. Appe lla nts Nikhil Jha

ve ri a nd Ela Jha ve ri se e k re vie w of the distric t c ourt’ s orde r granting a

ppe lle e ADT Se c urity

Se rvic e s, Inc .’ s m otion for judgme nt on the ple a dings. Pla i ntiffs a lle ge that the distric t c ourt fa ile d to c o nside r re le va n t sta te la w pre c e de nt, a

nd e rre d in not gra

nting plaintiffs le ave to a

m e nd the ir c o m

pla int. 

# FIL ED
JUL 17 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.-2-

W e re vie wthe distric t c ourt’ s orde r de novo. W e a ffirm in pa rt, re ve rse and
re m and. In gra nting ADT’ s m otion for judgme nt on theple a dings, thedistric t c ourt found tha t pla intiffs a lle ge d a

bre a c h only

of ADT’ s c ontra c tua l dutie s, a nd did not de m onstra

te tha t ADT bre a c he d a

duty arising outside

the pa rtie s’ a gre e m e nt. W e
a gre e with thedistric t c ourt tha t, to thee xte n t pla intiffs se e k a re m e dy for a bre a c h of c ontra c t, tha

t re m e dy is limite d to the liquida

te d da m a ge s provision in the pa rtie s ’ a gre e m e n ts. Howe v e r, re a ding the c om p la i nt in thelight m ost fa vora ble to the p la intiffs, the y

a lle g e ne glige nc e inde

p e nde n t of the c ontra c t, just a s a

patie nt
c an sue a doc tor for ne g l ige nc e e ve n though the patie n t a nd doc tor a lso ha

ve a
c ontra c tua l re lat ionship. Se e Erlic h v . Me ne ze s , 21 C a l.4th 543, 551 (1999). Eve n if pla intiffs’ origina l c o m pla i nt ha d not a lle ge d a

duty inde pe nde nt of the c ontra c t, pla intiffs sought le ave to a m e nd the ir c om

pla i nt. W e a gre e with the pla i ntiffs tha

t the d i stric t c ourt e rre d in de ny ing this re que st. A distric t c ourt should gra

nt le av e to a

m e nd e ve n if no re q

ue st to a m e nd the ple a ding wa s m a de , unle ss it de te rm ine s tha

t the ple a ding c ould not possibly be c ure d by the a lle gation of othe r fa c ts. Lac e

y v . Maric opa C

ounty
. , 693 F.3d 896, 926 (9th C i r. 2012). Pla i ntiffs c la im

tha t the ir propose d am e ndm e nts a lle ge tha t ADT viola

te d a duty inde pe nde nt of the pa

rtie s’ c ontra c t, suc h a s the e xe rc i se of re a sona ble c are in-3-

hiring. W e m ake no de te rm ination tha t pla i ntiffs’ propose d am e n dm e nts would pa ss m uste r unde r R

ule 12(b)(6) or survive a

m otion for sum

m ary judgm e n t. W e hold only tha t, unde r the pa

rtic u la r c irc um s ta

nc e s of this c a se , pla intiffs’ propose d
am e nde d c o m

pla int is not frivolous a

nd tha t le ave to a

m e nd should ha

ve be e n gran te d. Ea c h pa rty is to be ar its own c osts. AFFIRM E D IN PART ; RE V E RSE D and RE M ANDE D.