Clean Crawl, Inc. v. Crawl Space Cleaning Pros, Inc., 2:17-cv-01340

Background

Plaintiff Clean Crawl, Inc. (CCI) and Defendant Crawl Space Cleaning Pros (CSCP) are competing crawl-space/attic cleaning businesses operating in Western Washington; CCI traces its trade name use to 2001 and alleges CSCP was exposed to its marks through prior business interactions.
CSCP began using the trade name/brand CRAWL PROS (registered with WA Dept. of Revenue June 6, 2017) and began marketing under that name in mid‑2017; CCI discovered/identified that branding during discovery and social‑media checks in 2017–2018.
CSCP sued CCI in state court (Aug. 14, 2017). CCI filed the federal suit Sept. 6, 2017 asserting copyright and trademark claims, false designation, and CPA claims; the parties exchanged discovery in 2018, including materials showing use of the CRAWL PROS mark.
Multiple summary judgment motions were litigated; the Court’s Jan. 29, 2019 order discussed CRAWL PROS but later (Nov. 5, 2019) declined to consider claims based on that trade name as outside the pleadings, prompting CCI to move to amend/supplement.
CCI moved for leave to amend or supplement its complaint on Nov. 13, 2019 to add claims based on the CRAWL PROS trade name and to update trademark registration information; CSCP opposed as untimely and prejudicial.
The Court granted CCI’s motion on Dec. 11, 2019, finding CCI had shown diligence under Rule 16 and that Rule 15 factors did not bar amendment; offered a continuance if CSCP needed more discovery.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 16 good‑cause is satisfied for post‑deadline amendment	CCI reasonably believed CRAWL PROS was already before the Court and moved promptly once the Court clarified the pleadings	CSCP contends CCI was on constructive notice and delayed; Rule 16 requires diligence	Court found CCI reasonably diligent and satisfied Rule 16 good‑cause requirement
Whether leave to amend/supplement is appropriate under Rule 15	CCI sought to add CRAWL PROS claims and update registrations based on discovery and ongoing use	CSCP argued undue delay, prejudice, and that discovery should have prompted earlier amendment	Court applied Rule 15 factors, found no bad faith or futility, delay not undue, and granted leave to amend/supplement
Prejudice from adding CRAWL PROS trade‑name claims	CCI: CRAWL PROS use already produced in discovery and discussed in depositions; prejudice claim is vague	CSCP: would need to redo discovery, trial strategy, jury instructions, and damages analysis	Court concluded alleged prejudice was not substantial and did not bar amendment; continuance offered if extra discovery required
Prejudice from updating trademark registration dates	CCI: registrations or prosecution histories were produced or filed in summary judgment materials	CSCP: late disclosure deprived it of targeted discovery to challenge ownership/validity	Court found CCI had disclosed the material (or later filed it in submissions), and updating registrations would not substantially prejudice CSCP; amendment allowed

Key Cases Cited

In re W. States Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 716 (9th Cir. 2013) (Rule 16 good‑cause requirement for post‑deadline amendments focuses on diligence)
Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992) (diligence of the moving party is primary consideration under Rule 16)
Branch Banking & Tr. Co. v. D.M.S.I., LLC, 871 F.3d 751 (9th Cir. 2017) (lack of diligence ends the Rule 16 inquiry)
Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367 (9th Cir. 1990) (factors for Rule 15 amendments: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice, futility, prior amendments)
Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074 (9th Cir. 1990) (prejudice to the opposing party must be substantial to deny leave to amend)
AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2006) (timeliness and prejudice analysis in amendment contexts)