Zarkesh v. Vinmar Polymers America LLC
- Coughenour
- 3:24-cv-06618
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Zarkesh v. Vinmar Polymers America LLC, Judge Coughenour granted amendment and transfer, making defendants’ summary-judgment motion moot.
The plaintiff may amend her complaint and have the case transferred to the Northern District of California. The defendants must respond to the amended case there; their summary-judgment motion was denied as moot.
What happened
In Zarkesh v. Vinmar Polymers America LLC, the plaintiff asked to correct her complaint to allege that she performed the relevant services in California rather than Washington. She also sought to replace Washington-based claims with California-based claims and add allegations about sales charges affecting her commissions.
The defendants opposed the changes and asked for summary judgment on the claims as originally pleaded. They argued that dismissal, rather than transfer, was appropriate after the pleading errors were discovered.
Judge John C. Coughenour granted the plaintiff’s motions for leave to amend and to transfer venue. He directed the Clerk to transfer the case to the Northern District of California after the plaintiff files the Third Amended Complaint, and denied the defendants’ summary-judgment motion as moot.
The detailed version
- Zarkesh v. Vinmar Polymers America LLC · No. 3:24-cv-06618
- Coughenour
- Sept. 5, 2024
Background
This employment breach-of-contract case was originally pleaded as involving services performed in Washington. After discovery, the defendants learned that the plaintiff had performed the services while residing in California. The plaintiff then moved to amend her complaint and transfer the case to the Northern District of California.
The proposed Third Amended Complaint would revise the allegations about where the services were performed, replace Washington-based claims with California-based claims, and add allegations concerning charges the defendants made against sales when calculating commissions. The defendants instead asked the court to grant them summary judgment on the claims as originally pleaded. They also argued that dismissal, rather than transfer, was the appropriate response to the pleading errors.
Court’s analysis
Because the request to amend came after the scheduling-order deadline, the court first considered whether there was good cause to modify that order under Rule 16(b)(4). It then considered whether the proposed amendment was proper under Rule 15. The court found good cause because the plaintiff moved to amend shortly after the error in her pleading became clear.
The court also concluded that the proposed amendment was proper. Although requiring the defendants to litigate in another forum would create added cost and inconvenience, the court found that this did not amount to the prejudice needed to deny the amendment. The court stated that dismissal would be a severe measure and would not serve the interests of justice. The defendants did not challenge the Northern District of California as an appropriate venue based on the proposed amended allegations.
Ruling
Judge Coughenour granted the plaintiff’s motions for leave to amend and to transfer venue. The Clerk was directed to transfer the case to the Northern District of California once the plaintiff files the Third Amended Complaint. The court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as moot. The opinion does not decide the underlying contract or commission claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.