2:23-cv-00542
W.D. Wash.May 3, 2024Background
- King County and Bio Energy (Washington), LLC (BEW) are parties to a Project Development and Gas Sales Agreement (PDA) involving the processing of landfill gas.
- BEW shut down its gas processing plant for extended periods in mid and late 2023.
- In response, King County issued a Notice of Intent to Terminate under the PDA, demanding BEW cure its default and resume plant operations.
- BEW sent a "120-Day Written Plan of Action" in December 2023 but did not restart operations, leading King County to seek further legal remedies.
- The County moved (after the scheduling deadline) to amend and supplement its counterclaims to seek specific performance and declaratory relief concerning BEW’s obligations under the PDA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether King County showed good cause under Rule 16(b) to amend pleadings after the deadline | Not challenged by BEW | Acted diligently after new events (indefinite closure, unfulfilled plan) | Held for defendant (good cause found) |
| Whether amendment would prejudice BEW or result from delay, bad faith, or repeated deficiency | No prejudice, undue delay, or bad faith present | No evidence of prejudice or bad faith | Held for defendant (no undue prejudice/bad faith) |
| Whether the proposed new counterclaims are futile (i.e., fail to state a claim) | Amendment is futile because County claims inability to perform under PDA | Not futile; can plead inconsistent claims and willing to perform | Held for defendant (not futile; amendment allowed) |
| Whether BEW has been relieved of performance due to County’s actions | County’s own inability to perform relieves BEW’s obligations | County is willing to perform; sought alternative solutions | Court found County pleaded willingness; amendment not futile |
Key Cases Cited
- Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271 (9th Cir. 2000) (establishing Rule 16(b)’s "good cause" standard for amending pleadings post-deadline)
- Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992) (Rule 16(b) diligence standard and "inquiry should end" if no diligence)
- AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist W., Inc., 465 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2006) (liberal amendment policy under Rule 15(a))
- DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183 (9th Cir. 1987) (leave to amend only denied if "beyond doubt" that claim would be dismissed)
- Eminence Cap., LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2003) (prejudice is the touchstone under Rule 15(a) amendment inquiry)