United States District Court, D. Arizona
ORDER
DOMINIC W. LANZA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
T &
T initiated this lawsuit against Aztec and Oceanside on
September 21, 2018. (Doc. 1.) The first amended complaint
seeks a declaration (1) “that T & T is authorized
to sell, on Amazon.com, the Aztec Secret products purchased
in good-faith reliance on being able to sell these products
on Amazon.com”; or (2) “that in the event T &
T cannot sell its product on Amazon due to Aztec Secret's
enrollment in the Amazon ‘Transparency' program or
through other interference by Aztec or Oceanside, Aztec, or
its designee, must buy back all of the Aztec Secret products
T & T purchased from Aztec and has not yet sold through
Amazon.com at the cost T & T paid for the products,
including the original and return shipping costs, as well as
costs to package/prepare the product for return
shipping.” (Doc. 26 at 13.)
On
December 17, 2018, the Court held a motion hearing concerning
several outstanding motions. (Doc. 37.) A few days later, on
December 21, 2018, the Court issued an order resolving those
motions. (Doc. 39.) Specifically, the Court (1) denied
Aztec's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), (2)
granted Oceanside's motion to dismiss based upon a lack
of personal jurisdiction, and (3) denied T & T's
motion to expedite the hearing on its claim for declaratory
relief. (Id.)
Now
pending before the Court is T & T's Motion for
Partial Reconsideration and Motion for Leave to Amend
Complaint (Doc. 41). T & T argues (1) the Court should
reconsider its decision to dismiss against Oceanside based
upon a lack of personal jurisdiction, because T & T's
counsel proffered certain new facts during the December 17,
2018 motion hearing-facts that weren't included in, and
arguably contradict, the first amended complaint-that
demonstrate how T & T was harmed by Oceanside's
allegedly tortious conduct, and (2) the Court should, in any
event, permit T & T to file a second amended complaint
that alleges these new facts, as well as certain other new
facts, and also includes new causes of action seeking
monetary damages. (Id.)
As
explained below, the Court agrees that T & T should be
permitted to amend its complaint in the manner described in
the Motion. This amendment will have the effect of
reinstituting T & T's claims against Oceanside.
However, the Court also concludes that, as a technical
matter, T &T is not entitled to reconsideration of the
December 21, 2018 order. Thus, the Motion will be denied in
part (to the extent it seeks reconsideration) and granted in
part (to the extent it seeks leave to file a second amended
complaint).
First,
the request for reconsideration will be denied.
“Motions for reconsideration are disfavored . . . and
are not the place for parties to make new arguments not
raised in their original briefs.” Motorola, Inc. v.
J.B. Rodgers Mechanical Contractors, 215 F.R.D. 581, 582
(D. Ariz. 2003). Here, the Court granted Oceanside's
motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction because,
inter alia, the factual allegations in the first
amended complaint did not establish a but-for causal link
between Oceanside's conduct and T & T's asserted
injuries. To the extent T &T wishes to change its factual
allegations to address this deficiency, the proper way to do
so is to seek leave to file an amended complaint-not proffer
facts during an oral argument (which wasn't designated as
an evidentiary hearing) that contradict the operative
complaint.
T &
T has alternatively requested leave to file a second amended
complaint containing these new factual allegations against
Oceanside (as well as certain other new matters). “Rule
15 advises the court that ‘leave shall be freely given
when justice so requires, '” and the Ninth Circuit
has emphasized that “[t]his policy is ‘to be
applied with extreme liberality.'” Eminence
Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th
Cir. 2003). Here, the Court finds that T & T's
request is made in good faith, is not futile, and will not
result in undue prejudice to Aztec or Oceanside. Thus, it
will grant the request. Furthermore, T & T has complied
with LRCiv. 15.1(a) by providing a redlined copy of its
proposed second amended complaint as an exhibit to the
Motion. (Doc. 41-1.)
Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED granting in part, and denying
in part, T & T's Motion for Partial Reconsideration
and Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Doc. 41).
IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED that leave to amend the first
amended complaint is granted. Pursuant to LRCiv 15.1, T &
T must file and serve the second amended complaint on all
parties under Rule 5 of ...