FRAZIER INDUSTRIAL COMPANY v. FROZEN ASSETS COLD STORAGE, LLC
2:21-cv-05545
D.N.J.Jul 13, 2023Background
- Frazier Industrial fabricated a custom steel racking system for Frozen Assets and alleges Frozen Assets failed to pay; Avtech defendants are separately named and contested jurisdiction/claims.
- Magistrate Judge Cathy L. Waldor denied Frazier’s motion for leave to amend the complaint without prejudice, holding the request in abeyance pending completion of jurisdictional discovery and adjudication of defendants’ motions to dismiss/transfer.
- Frazier appealed the magistrate judge’s December 27, 2022 order and also filed a separate "cross-motion" to amend that contravened the magistrate’s scheduling orders.
- Defendants moved (renewed) to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, failure to state a claim, and for fraud pleadings (Avtech); the district court left those motions pending.
- Judge Katharine S. Hayden affirmed the magistrate judge’s order, denied Frazier’s cross-motion to amend without prejudice, and held further motion practice in abeyance until decisions on the jurisdictional motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the magistrate judge’s denial of leave to amend without prejudice was clearly erroneous or contrary to law | Frazier: met Rule 15 standard; will be prejudiced if amendment denied now | Defendants: deferral was proper case management given unresolved personal jurisdiction and prior orders | Affirmed — magistrate’s order was a proper exercise of case-management discretion and not clearly erroneous or contrary to law |
| Whether Frazier’s subsequently filed “cross-motion” to amend (contravening prior orders) should be entertained | Frazier: seeks to modify allegations, add claims and a defendant; asked court to accept filing | Defendants: filing violated Judge Waldor’s scheduling order and should be stricken | Denied without prejudice — motion contravened prior orders and will be entertained only after jurisdictional motions resolved |
| Whether jurisdictional questions should be resolved before permitting amendment or reaching the merits | Frazier: argued entitlement to amend under Rule 15 but acknowledged case-management element | Defendants: personal jurisdiction must be resolved first; some amendment arguments overlap with merits | Court reaffirmed that jurisdictional questions should be resolved before merits/amendment; delaying amendment is appropriate |
| Whether further motion practice should proceed while motions to dismiss are pending | Frazier: sought immediate amendment and continued motion practice | Defendants: urged stay of further motion practice until dismissal/transfer rulings | Court: further motion practice will not be entertained until the pending motions to dismiss (D.E. 147, 148) are decided |
Key Cases Cited
- Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (2007) (federal courts generally must establish jurisdiction before deciding the merits)
- In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig., 855 F.3d 126 (3d Cir. 2017) (jurisdictional questions precede merits; discusses appropriate sequencing of motions)
- Lampe v. Xouth, Inc., 952 F.2d 697 (3d Cir. 1991) (personal jurisdiction must be established before a court may render judgment)
- Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Dominick D’Andrea, Inc., 150 F.3d 245 (3d Cir. 1998) (magistrate judges may hear nondispositive pretrial matters including motions to amend)
- Patel v. Meridian Health Sys., [citation="666 F. App'x 133"] (3d Cir. 2016) (motions to amend pleadings are non-dispositive pretrial matters for magistrate judges)
- Gerald Chamales Corp. v. Oki Data Americas, Inc., 247 F.R.D. 453 (D.N.J. 2007) (magistrate judges possess broad discretion in managing the docket and pretrial matters)