Wang v. Ehang Holdings Limited
- Beth Freeman
- 5:20-cv-00569
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
Wang v. EHang Holdings Limited: Judge Freeman denied defendants’ request to file a late pleadings motion because they showed no good cause or diligence.
The defendants were not permitted to file the proposed late motion for judgment on the pleadings, and Gary Wang was not required to respond to that additional motion.
What happened
In Wang v. EHang Holdings Limited, the defendants asked for permission to file a motion challenging the pleadings after the deadline in the court’s case schedule. They wanted to argue that one claim belonged in arbitration, another was not detailed enough, and a third was too old to pursue.
The court said defendants had not shown the diligence and good cause required to change the deadline. They had answered the second amended complaint instead of filing another challenge and waited months after the deadline to seek permission. The court also found that allowing another motion would prejudice Gary Wang by forcing him to litigate issues that could have been raised earlier.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied defendants’ motion for leave to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The ruling addressed only whether defendants could file that late motion; it did not decide the proposed arguments about arbitration, pleading detail, or the wage claim’s timeliness.
The detailed version
- Wang v. Ehang Holdings Limited · No. 5:20-cv-00569
- Beth Freeman
- Sept. 27, 2021
Background
Gary Wang sued EHang Holdings Limited and the other defendants. The operative second amended complaint asserted claims for breach of contract, fraud, and unpaid wages. Defendants had previously filed motions concerning service of process, dismissal, personal jurisdiction, and arbitration. The court’s case schedule set March 11, 2021, as the deadline for filing dispositive motions—motions that could resolve claims or the case—and April 15, 2021, as the cutoff for hearing them.
Defendants answered the second amended complaint on February 17, 2021, instead of filing another motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12. They later moved for leave to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings. They proposed arguing that the contract claim was subject to arbitration, the fraud claim lacked sufficient detail, and the unpaid-wages claim was time-barred.
Court’s reasoning
The court treated defendants’ request as a motion to modify the case schedule under Rule 16. That rule permits a schedule to be changed only for good cause and with the judge’s consent. The court explained that the key question was whether defendants had acted diligently.
The court found that defendants did not address Rule 16 in their motion and did not show the required diligence. The alleged defects in the second amended complaint were apparent on its face, yet defendants chose to answer rather than file a timely motion. They waited six months after the complaint was filed and four months after the dispositive-motion deadline expired before seeking leave. The court rejected counsel’s explanation that new counsel later recognized that a judgment-on-the-pleadings motion might resolve the case, stating that prior counsel’s failure to file appropriate motions did not establish good cause.
The court also found that allowing the proposed motion would prejudice Wang. It noted that he had already litigated two motions to dismiss, a motion to compel arbitration, and other motions, and that he had reasonably believed the pleadings had been settled for months. The court considered it unreasonable to require further motion practice when defendants could have raised their proposed challenges earlier.
Disposition
The court found that defendants had not established good cause to modify the case schedule and denied defendants’ motion for leave to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The order did not rule on whether the contract claim was arbitrable, whether the fraud claim was adequately pleaded, or whether the unpaid-wages claim was time-barred.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.