Appin v. Mergermarket Ltd.

Background

Ricky L Appin filed a complaint in California state court alleging federal and state claims arising from her employment. Mergermarket removed the case to federal court, asserting diversity jurisdiction. ION Trading, Inc. later filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over it. The court granted that motion on November 29, 2023, and dismissed ION Trading without leave to amend because Appin had not described facts she could plead to cure the jurisdictional problem.

Appin then filed two motions. First, she sought leave to file a motion asking the court to reconsider the ION Trading dismissal. Second, she sought leave to file a first amended complaint that would add ION Investment Group Limited, Mergermarket Limited, and Dealogic L.L.C. as defendants and retain ION Trading as a defendant based on new factual allegations.

Motion for Leave to Seek Reconsideration

Appin relied on Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(1), which permits reconsideration when there is a material difference in fact or law that the party could not have known about despite reasonable diligence. She relied on Mergermarket’s initial discovery disclosures, which identified Kunal Gullapalli, described as ION Trading’s chief financial officer, as a decisionmaker in Appin’s employment termination. Appin argued that this information showed ION Trading exercised enough control over her employment to support personal jurisdiction.

The court assumed, for purposes of the motion, that the information had the significance Appin claimed. It nevertheless found that she could not show the required diligence. The disclosures were made on October 13, 2023, more than six weeks before the November 29 dismissal order. Appin did not explain why she waited to raise the information until after the ruling or why she waited three additional weeks before seeking leave to request reconsideration. The court therefore denied Appin’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. It did so without reaching the defendants’ arguments about whether the new information actually established jurisdiction over ION Trading.

The court also terminated as moot the defendants’ request for judicial notice because it denied the reconsideration motion without reaching those substantive jurisdiction arguments.

Motion for Leave to Amend

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), courts generally should allow an amended pleading when justice requires, unless circumstances such as undue delay, bad faith, repeated failure to fix deficiencies, prejudice, or futile amendment support denial. The court applied this standard because Appin sought leave by the deadline in the scheduling order, rather than after that deadline.

The defendants argued that Appin lacked good cause for amendment, that she had delayed seeking permission, and that amendment would interfere with the case schedule and prejudice newly named defendants. The court found that the defendants had not shown sufficient prejudice. Their argument that depositions and the discovery deadline might need adjustment was speculative and could be addressed later through a request to modify the scheduling order supported by a specific showing of good cause. The court also found that Appin’s request was made by the court-ordered deadline, even though she could have sought amendment sooner.

The court granted Appin’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint. It expressly took no position on the merits of the proposed amendments. The court stated that defendants could raise any continuing jurisdictional defects in a motion to dismiss after the amendment was filed, and that discovery would continue on all claims unless the court granted a motion to stay some discovery. The first amended complaint had to be filed by March 15, 2024.