Stuart C. Irby Company, LLC v. CommNV, LLC
2:24-cv-01889
D. Nev.Jul 9, 2025Background
- The case involves Stuart C. Irby Company LLC (“Irby”) seeking to amend its complaint to add allegations against Uprise Defendants (Uprise Fiber LLC and Uprise LLC), an unknown surety, and to add Stephen Kromer and Kromer Investments, LLC as alter egos of Uprise Defendants.
- Uprise Defendants opposed the motion, arguing only that the proposed alter ego allegations are insufficient.
- The motion before the court is for leave to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2).
- The Uprise Defendants did not argue bad faith, undue delay, prejudice, or prior amendments as grounds for denial.
- The main dispute is whether Irby’s proposed amendments, especially regarding alter ego liability, are futile.
- The Magistrate Judge (Brenda Weksler) decided the motion on July 9, 2025.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should leave to amend be granted for alter ego claims? | Amendments are valid and may cure deficiencies | Alter ego allegations are deficient/futile | Leave to amend is granted; not futile |
| Is futility grounds for denying amendment at this stage? | Futility standard not met; amendment may survive | Plaintiff can't prove the alter ego claim | Futility is not shown; amendment is allowed |
| Have defendants shown sufficient grounds to deny leave? | No prejudice, bad faith, delay, or prior amendments | Only challenge is sufficiency of alter ego pleadings | Insufficient grounds to deny leave |
| Should the underlying merits of the claim be decided now? | Not at motion to amend stage | Merits should bar amendment | Merits to be decided later |
Key Cases Cited
- DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183 (9th Cir. 1987) (burden is on party opposing amendment to show why leave should be denied)
- Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2004) (five factors considered in Rule 15(a)(2) amendments)
- Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2003) (prejudice is the key factor in leave to amend)
- Roth v. Garcia Marquez, 942 F.2d 617 (9th Cir. 1991) (Rule 15’s purpose is decision on merits, not technicalities)
- Griggs v. Pace Am. Grp., Inc., 170 F.3d 877 (9th Cir. 1999) (presumption in favor of granting amendments)
- Barahona v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 881 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2018) (amendment is futile only when no set of facts could state claim)