UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Stonyfield Farm, Inc.

v. Civil No. 08-cv-488-JD

Agro-Farma, Inc.

v.

Schreiber Foods, Inc.

O R D E R

Stonyfield Farm, Inc. filed its original complaint against

Agro-Farma, Inc. on November 25, 2008. Agro-Farma answered on

January 17, 2009, but then amended its answer on February 5,

2009, adding three counterclaims against Stonyfield Farm. 

Stonyfield Farm answered the counterclaims on February 20, 2009. 

On April 21, 2009, Agro-Farma filed its second amended answer and

counterclaims, which included seven claims against Stonyfield

Farm, one claim against Schreiber Foods, Inc., and three claims

against both. Stonyfield Farm and Schreiber Foods then answered

the second amended answer and counterclaims.

Stonyfield Farm and Schreiber Foods moved for judgment on

the pleadings with respect to four of the counterclaims. While

the motion was pending, on August 19, 2009, Stonyfield Farm

amended its complaint. The motion for judgment on the pleadings

was granted, after which Agro-Farma filed its answer to

Case 1:08-cv-00488-JD Document 59 Filed 05/06/10 Page 1 of 3
Stonyfield Farm’s first amended complaint, along with its third

amended counterclaims. On November 17, 2009, Stonyfield Farm and

Schreiber Foods each filed replies to the third amended

counterclaims.

The parties filed a joint motion to continue and extend

certain deadlines in the second amended discovery plan. The

court granted the motion, which provided that amendments to

pleadings be filed by April 1, 2010. Accordingly, on that date,

Stonyfield Farm filed a motion to amend its amended complaint and

a motion to amend its reply to the third amended counterclaims. 

Agro-Farma filed a motion to amend its third amended

counterclaims. Neither party filed a memorandum of law in

support of the motions, and no party has objected to any of the

motions.

Stonyfield Farm has already amended its complaint once, and

Agro-Farma has already amended its answer three times. Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1), which allows for amending once

as a matter of course, does not apply to either of the current

motions to amend. Rule 15(a)(2) provides that, where Rule

15(a)(1) does not apply, “a party may amend its pleading only

with . . . the court’s leave,” which should be freely given “when

justice so requires.” The parties suggest no reason why allowing

these amendments would be prejudicial, and the court discerns

2

Case 1:08-cv-00488-JD Document 59 Filed 05/06/10 Page 2 of 3
none. Therefore, both Stonyfield Farm’s motion to amend its

complaint and Agro-Farma’s motion to amend its answer and

counterclaims are granted.

Because Agro-Farma’s third amended answer and counterclaims

will no longer be an operative document, Stonyfield Farm’s motion

to amend its reply to the third amended answer and counterclaims

is denied as moot.

The deadlines for filing responsive pleadings are dictated

by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Stonyfield Farm’s motion to amend

its amended complaint (doc. no. 53) and Agro-Farma’s motion to

amend its third amended answer and counterclaims (doc. no. 56)

are granted. Stonyfield Farm’s motion to amend its reply to

Agro-Farma’s third amended counterclaims (doc. no. 54) is denied.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

May 6, 2010

cc: Jessica L. Copeland, Esquire

Peter S. Cowan, Esquire

Thomas J. Donovan, Esquire

Robert J. Fluskey, Jr., Esquire

Edward A. Haffer, Esquire

Kevin M. Kearney, Esquire

Arnold Rosenblatt, Esquire

3

Case 1:08-cv-00488-JD Document 59 Filed 05/06/10 Page 3 of 3