180 F. Supp. 3d 1349
Ct. Int'l Trade2016Background
- Rienzi & Son imported sun-dried tomatoes in 2005, protested liquidation, and filed a summons in 2007; the complaint was filed on July 1, 2014 after long delays and the case was assigned to the Court.
- The Court issued a scheduling order (later amended) setting a deadline for motions regarding the pleadings and a fact-discovery cutoff; those deadlines passed long before June 29, 2016.
- On June 29, 2016 — 18 months after the scheduling-order deadline and after discovery closed — Rienzi moved for leave to file an amended complaint to correct product descriptions and container sizes and to revise ingredient statements.
- The United States opposed the motion, arguing prejudice and the need to reopen discovery.
- Rienzi also sought leave to file a reply to the Government’s opposition; the Government opposed that request as well.
- The Court denied both motions, concluding Rienzi lacked diligence, failed to show good cause under USCIT Rule 16(b) or excusable neglect under USCIT Rule 6(b), and that amendment would prejudice the Government.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court should grant leave to amend the complaint after scheduling-order deadlines | Rienzi: amendment is warranted "in the interest of justice" to correct product descriptions; no extra discovery needed | U.S.: amendment is untimely, prejudicial, and would require reopening discovery | Denied — undue delay, prejudice, and futility concerns support denial under USCIT Rule 15(a) |
| Whether plaintiff showed good cause to modify the scheduling order (Rule 16) | Rienzi: did not expressly argue good cause; relied on Rule 15(a) equitable standard | U.S.: no diligence shown; the facts to support amendment were known long ago | Denied — no diligence; proposed changes rest on information known before the deadline |
| Whether plaintiff showed excusable neglect for filing after deadlines (Rule 6(b)(1)(B)) | Rienzi: did not address excusable neglect or circumstances beyond control | U.S.: argues untimely motion should be denied absent excusable neglect | Denied — plaintiff failed to demonstrate excusable neglect for the 18-month delay |
| Whether leave to file a reply should be granted | Rienzi: sought to reply to Government opposition | U.S.: opposed extra briefing given delay and deficiencies | Denied — court declined reply in exercise of discretion to promote just, speedy, inexpensive resolution |
Key Cases Cited
- Kemin Foods, L.C. v. Pigmentos Vegetales del Centro S.A. de C.V., 464 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (factors permitting denial of leave to amend include undue delay, prejudice, bad faith, or futility)
- Pioneer Inv. Servs. v. Brunswick Assocs., 507 U.S. 380 (1993) (standard for evaluating excusable neglect)
- Advanced Software Design Corp. v. Fiserv, Inc., 641 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (good-cause inquiry under Rule 16 focuses on movant's diligence)
- Perfect Pearl Co., Inc. v. Majestic Pearl & Stone, Inc., 889 F. Supp. 2d 453 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (amendment not allowed when based on information known before the deadline)