Gatan, Inc. v. Nion Company

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-01862

ORDER by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton DENYING {{37}} Motion for Relief Seeking Clarification, or in the alternative, for Leave to Amend. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton, on 12/10/15 (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) Modified on 12/11/2015

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GATAN, INC., Case No. 15-cv-1862-PJH 8 Plaintiff, 9 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF 10 NION COMPANY, 11 Defendant. 12 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 14 Before the court is plaintiff's motion for administrative relief seeking clarification, or 15 in the alternative, for leave. Plaintiff was given leave to amend its complaint, with the 16 condition that "no new claims may be added without leave of court or the consent of all 17 parties." See Dkt. 33. Plaintiff now seeks to divide its prior breach of contract claim into 18 two separate claims, though it maintains that "this is not a 'new claim' but rather revising 19 its existing claims in a manner that improves clarity." 20 Plaintiff informs the court that it sought a stipulation from defendant, but while 21 defendant "did not have a conceptual problem with agreeing to the act of dividing claims," 22 it could not stipulate to the proposed amended complaint without first seeing it. However, 23 because the second amended complaint was still "being revised," plaintiff was "unable to 24 share a finalized second amended complaint with [defendant] prior to the filing deadline." 25 The issue raised by defendant is the same issue that prevents the court from 26 granting plaintiff's administrative motion. Without reviewing the proposed amended 27 complaint, the court cannot determine whether it adds new claims, and thus cannot 28 determine whether it complies with the scope of plaintiff's leave to amend. Thus, 1 pla aintiff's adm ministrative motion is DENIED. D 2 Howev ver, becaus se it appearrs likely thatt this issue can be ressolved witho out further 3 urt involvem cou ment, the co ourt hereby y directs pla aintiff to pro ovide a copy of its prop posed 4 sec cond amen nded compla aint to defe endant no la ecember 1 ater than De 16, 2015. P Plaintiff 5 sha all then hav cember 23,, 2015 to eiither submit a stipulation reflectin ve until Dec ng 6 deffendant's consent c d amended complaint, or to subm to the filing of the second mit an 7 administrative e motion forr leave with h the propossed amend ded complaint attached d for the 8 urt's review cou w. 9 IT IS SO S ORDER RED. 10 Da ated: December 10, 20 015 11 __ __________ __________ __________ _______ PH HYLLIS J. HHAMILTON 12 Northern District of California Un nited Statess District Ju udge United States District Court 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2