BD Performing Arts v. B.A.C. Musical Instruments, LLC
- Jeffrey White
- 4:22-cv-02050
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In BD Performing Arts v. B.A.C. Musical Instruments, Judge White granted amendment as of right and took defendants’ dismissal motion under submission.
BD Performing Arts was allowed to amend its complaint. B.A.C. Musical Instruments, LLC, RMI, LLC, and the other defendants’ motion to dismiss remained undecided and was taken under submission.
What happened
BD Performing Arts sued B.A.C. Musical Instruments, LLC and others under federal trademark and customs laws and California unfair-competition law. It asked to amend its complaint, including to limit its claims to instruments made and sold after December 31, 2020.
The court said BD Performing Arts could amend its complaint as a matter of right because the defendants had not filed a responsive pleading and had not moved under the listed dismissal rules. The court granted the motion for leave to amend and did not decide whether the amendment would be futile.
Judge White did not decide the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Instead, because the defendants also argued that the case should be heard elsewhere, the court took that motion under submission for a later ruling and vacated the scheduled hearing.
The detailed version
- BD Performing Arts v. B.A.C. Musical Instruments, LLC · No. 4:22-cv-02050
- Jeffrey White
- June 17, 2022
Background
BD Performing Arts’ initial complaint alleged violations of the Lanham Act, the Tariff Act, California’s Unfair Competition Law, and common-law unfair competition against B.A.C. Musical Instruments, LLC, RMI, LLC, and another defendant identified in the opinion as Tianjin Jinbao Musical Instruments Co., Ltd. BD Performing Arts had also sought a temporary restraining order, which the court denied without prejudice on April 25, 2022.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on forum-selection clauses in two agreements, arguing that the case had to be heard in Kansas. Fourteen days later, BD Performing Arts moved for leave to file an amended complaint. The proposed amendment included limiting the claims to instruments manufactured and sold by the defendants after December 31, 2020, when an agreement between BD Performing Arts’ defunct subsidiary and Jinbao expired.
Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B) allows a plaintiff to amend its complaint as a matter of right within 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or certain motions under Rule 12. The court found that BD Performing Arts was entitled to amend as of right because the defendants had not filed a responsive pleading and did not move under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f). The court also noted that BD Performing Arts filed its amendment motion 14 days after the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Because the amendment was allowed as of right, the court did not address whether the proposed amendment would be futile. The court granted BD Performing Arts’ motion for leave to amend.
Ruling and status of the dismissal motion
The court stated that it could treat the motion to dismiss as moot, but the defendants also argued that the amended complaint should be dismissed based on the doctrine allowing a court to decline a case because another forum is more appropriate. The court therefore said it would analyze the motion based on the amended complaint, took the motion under submission, and would issue a ruling later. The opinion does not decide that motion. The court vacated the hearing scheduled for June 24, 2022.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.