RJ Control Consultants, Inc. v. Multiject, LLC
2:16-cv-10728-DML-EAS
E.D. Mich.May 30, 2017Background
- RJ Control Consultants, Inc. (RJ Control) develops industrial control systems and holds a copyright for a system called "Design 3."
- RJ Control contracted with Multiject to manufacture control systems; Multiject later moved production to RSW and defendant Jack Elder is associated with Multiject/RSW.
- RJ Control sued Multiject, RSW, and Elder for copyright infringement on March 1, 2016; Paul E. Rogers (Rogers), the company's sole shareholder and alleged actual copyright owner, was not originally named as a plaintiff.
- Defendants denied RJ Control’s intellectual property claims in early pleadings and questioned ownership; Rogers’s deposition raised ownership questions.
- RJ Control sought leave to amend to add Rogers as a plaintiff on January 10, 2017 after mediation/facilitation efforts stalled; Multiject and Elder opposed the amendment, RSW did not.
- The court granted leave to amend, finding no undue delay, bad faith, or prejudice that would bar amendment, and noting the parties had discussed the issue earlier and paused litigation for facilitation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of motion to amend | Amendment sought after discovery revealed license and ownership materials; filed in "abundance of caution" once necessary | Motion untimely because defendants raised ownership defect in early responsive pleadings (March 2016); amendment delayed until Jan 2017 | Motion not untimely given discussions, discovery, and mediation pause; court allowed amendment |
| Failure to cure alleged pleading defect | Parties had discussed adding Rogers and RJ Control produced a license showing RJ Control's rights; attempted stipulation sought in Oct 2016 | Defendants say RJ Control was repeatedly notified and failed to cure promptly | Court found parties had attempted to address the issue and facilitation justified timing; no repeated uncured failures warranting denial |
| Bad faith in seeking amendment | Amendment brought in good faith to ensure proper parties; triggered after mediation failed | Defendants contend motion was strategic or dilatory | Court found no evidence of bad faith; amendment allowed |
| Prejudice to defendants / futility | RJ Control argues addition is proper and not prejudicial; amendment would clarify ownership | Defendants imply prejudice from late-party addition | Court required significant prejudice to deny and found none; entertained extension of scheduling order if needed |
Key Cases Cited
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321 (recognizing district court discretion on amendment)
- Estes v. Kentucky Util. Co., 636 F.2d 1131 (6th Cir. 1980) (trial court discretion on amendments)
- Marks v. Shell Oil Co., 830 F.2d 68 (6th Cir. 1987) (liberal policy to decide claims on merits)
- Hageman v. Signal L.P. Gas, Inc., 486 F.2d 479 (6th Cir. 1973) (factors for allowing amendments)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (sets standards for leave to amend)
- General Elec. Co. v. Sargent & Lundy, 916 F.2d 1119 (6th Cir. 1990) (delay alone insufficient to deny amendment)
- Moore v. City of Paducah, 790 F.2d 557 (6th Cir. 1986) (need significant showing of prejudice to deny amendment)