Faulk et al v. JELD-WEN, Inc. et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
DAVID G. FAULK, and BONNIE J.
FAULK,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
JELD-WEN, INC., d/b/a Pozzi Window
Company; SPENARD BUILDERS
SUPPLY, LLC; and RODERICK C.
WENDT,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:22-cv-00171-JMK
ORDER RE: PENDING MOTIONS
Pending before the Court is (1) Defendants JELD-WEN, Inc. (“JELD-
WEN”) and Roderick C. Wendt’s Motion to Strike First Amended Class Action Complaint
at Docket 37; (2) Plaintiffs David and Bonnie Faulk’s Motion to Remand at Docket 40;
and (3) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint at Docket 48.
The parties requested oral argument, but the Court chose to proceed without argument.1
1 The Court indicated that it would waive the deadline for the parties to file motions for
reconsideration under D. Alaska Loc Civ. R. 7.3(h) until Plaintiffs successfully retained new
counsel. 	The parties may move the Court to reconsider this Order not later than 30 days after
Plaintiffs retain substitute counsel.
Case 3:22-cv-00171-SLG Document 59 Filed 11/07/23 Page 1 of 8

Faulk v Jeld-Wen, Inc. et al. 	Case No. 3:22-cv-00171-JMK
Order re Pending Motions 	Page 2
I. 	BACKGROUND
This case finds itself in a unique procedural posture. 	The Court presumes
familiarity with the facts and procedure of this case, but provides a brief overview of the
facts relating to the pending motions. 	On July 21, 2022, JELD-WEN and Roderick C.
Wendt (“Wendt”) removed this putative class action to this Court, alleging that this case
falls under the Court’s diversity jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act
(“CAFA”).2 	On August 15, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand, arguing that the
local controversy exception to the CAFA applies and requires this Court to decline
jurisdiction.3 At Docket 29, this Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand, with leave to
amend the Complaint. The Court found that the local controversy exception does not apply
and therefore remand is not appropriate.4 	The Court “acknowledge[d] however that the
allegations regarding [Spenard Builders Supply, LLC (“Spenard”)] in the Complaint are
vague and there is a possibility that, with some clarification of Spenard’s role, the local
controversy analysis may be altered.”5 	The Court therefore granted Plaintiffs leave to
amend their Complaint “solely for the purpose of adding allegations that clarify Spenard’s
role in the counts alleged against Spenard.”6 The Court emphasized that “Plaintiffs’ leave
to amend is narrow, and any amendment falling outside the parameters set in this Order
will be stricken.”7
2 Docket 1 at 3–6.
3 Docket 15.
4 Docket 29 at 13.
5 Id.
6 Id. at 14.
7 Id. at 14–15.
Case 3:22-cv-00171-SLG Document 59 Filed 11/07/23 Page 2 of 8

Faulk v Jeld-Wen, Inc. et al. 	Case No. 3:22-cv-00171-JMK
Order re Pending Motions 	Page 3
On February 16, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint.8 	On
March 13, 2023, Defendants JELD-WEN and Wendt moved to strike Plaintiffs’ Amended
Complaint, arguing that the amendments exceed scope of the Court’s Order granting
narrow leave to amend.9 On March 20, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a renewed Motion to Remand,
asserting that the allegations in the First Amended Complaint establish that this case falls
within CAFA’s local controversy exception.10 On June 2, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Motion
for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint.11 Plaintiffs state that the amendment is
proposed to remove the class allegations and focus solely on Plaintiffs’ claims.12 Plaintiffs
“submit that the second amended complaint should be relevant for the Court’s CAFA
analysis or otherwise provide independent grounds for divesting jurisdiction.”13
II. 	DISCUSSION
A. 	Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint
In Benko v. Quality Loan Service Corporation, 789 F.3d 1111, 1117 (9th Cir.
2015), the Ninth Circuit held that “plaintiffs should be permitted to amend a complaint
after removal to clarify issues pertaining to federal jurisdiction under CAFA.” 	In
Broadway Grill, Inc. v. Visa Inc., 856 F.3d 1274, 1279 (9th Cir. 2017), the Ninth Circuit
clarified that “[i]n Benko, we created a small exception to the general rule that bars post-
removal amendments related to jurisdiction.” Under Benko, post-removal amendments are
8 Docket 32.
9 Docket 37. Spenard joined this motion at Docket 39.
10 Docket 40.
11 Docket 48.
12 Id. at 2–3.
13 Id. at 3.
Case 3:22-cv-00171-SLG Document 59 Filed 11/07/23 Page 3 of 8

Faulk v Jeld-Wen, Inc. et al. 	Case No. 3:22-cv-00171-JMK
Order re Pending Motions 	Page 4
allowed solely for the purposes of “clarifying the relationship between the parties and the
effect of the class claims on particular defendants.”14 	Benko does not allow plaintiffs to
“strike a new path to permit plaintiffs to amend their class definition, add or remove
defendants, or add or remove claims in such a way that would alter the essential
jurisdictional analysis.15 	Mindful of the narrowness of the Benko exception to post-
removal amendments, this Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to remand and granted Plaintiffs
leave to amend “solely for the purpose of adding allegations that clarify Spenard’s role in
the counts alleged against Spenard.”16 	The Court warned that “any amendment falling
outside the parameters set in this Order will be stricken.”17
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint does not clarify Spenard’s role in the
counts alleged against Spenard. The amendments are mostly the addition “and Spenard”
or “or Spenard” to preexisting allegations relating to JELD-WEN. 	The only substantive
amendments suggest that Spenard was acting solely as an agent of JELD-WEN and does
not identify any actions Spenard took independently of JELD-WEN.18 	In fact, the
Amended Complaint adds allegations that Spenard marketed and sold Pozzi windows
acting as an agent of JELD-WEN.19 	As the Court specified in its Order at Docket 29,
“[w]here a local defendant’s sole alleged conduct was undertaken as an agent of the non-
local defendant,” the local controversy exception does not apply.20 But more troubling is
14 Broadway Grill, Inc. v. Visa Inc., 856 F.3d 1274, 1279 (9th Cir. 2017).
15 Id.
16 Docket 29 at 14 (emphasis added).
17 Id. at 14–15.
18 Docket 32 at 9–13.
19 Id. at ¶ 16, 21.
20 Docket 29 at 9 (citing Busker v. Wabtec Corp., 750 F. App’x 522, 524 (9th Cir. 2018)).
Case 3:22-cv-00171-SLG Document 59 Filed 11/07/23 Page 4 of 8

Faulk v Jeld-Wen, Inc. et al. 	Case No. 3:22-cv-00171-JMK
Order re Pending Motions 	Page 5
that the First Amended Complaint adds new counts against Spenard, thus “alter[ing] the
essential jurisdictional analysis.”21 Spenard was named in only three of the seven claims
alleged in the original Complaint.22 The First Amended Complaint names Spenard (often
cursorily) in all seven claims and adds a claim against Wendt.23 This is plainly improper
under both Benko and this Court’s Order at Docker 29. In short, Plaintiffs’ First Amended
Complaint does not do what it was meant to do—clarify the relationship between
Defendants to aid the Court’s jurisdictional analysis––and does exactly what it was not
meant to do—greatly expand the counts alleged against Spenard in an attempt to defeat
CAFA jurisdiction. 	Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint at Docket 32 is
STRICKEN.
B. 	Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion to Remand
As the Court has stricken Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, the operative
pleading for the Court’s jurisdictional analysis is the original Complaint. 	The Court
already has ruled that remand is inappropriate under the original Complaint.24 Plaintiffs’
Renewed Motion to Remand at Docket 40 is based on the now-stricken First Amended
Complaint. Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion to Remand therefore is DENIED as MOOT.
21 Broadway Grill, Inc. v. Visa Inc., 856 F.3d 1274, 1279 (9th Cir. 2017).
22 Docket 29 at 8.
23 Docket 32 at 9–19.
24 Docket 29.
Case 3:22-cv-00171-SLG Document 59 Filed 11/07/23 Page 5 of 8

Faulk v Jeld-Wen, Inc. et al. 	Case No. 3:22-cv-00171-JMK
Order re Pending Motions 	Page 6
C. 	Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend
Plaintiffs seek to amend their Complaint to remove the class allegations and
add new allegations.25 To the extent that Plaintiffs claim this proposed amended complaint
divests the Court of jurisdiction, this procedural move reeks of forum manipulation.26 If
Plaintiffs seek to destroy federal jurisdiction by eliminating the class aspect of this action,
their efforts are futile. 	This is because jurisdiction is determined at the time of removal;
therefore, post-removal developments do not defeat jurisdiction.27 	As Broadway Grill
made clear, post-removal amendments to narrow (or eliminate) a class does not destroy
CAFA jurisdiction.28
Although Plaintiffs’ proposed amendments will not divest this Court of
CAFA jurisdiction, the Court finds granting leave to amend to eliminate the class
allegations proper. If Plaintiffs no longer wish to bring a class action, they should not be
forced to.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that, once the deadline to
amend as a matter of course has passed, a party may amend its pleading “only with the
opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.”29 	“The court should freely give
25 Docket 48.
26 See Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S. 457, 475 n.6 (2007) (noting how
removal cases may raise forum manipulation concerns).
27 United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Mfg., Energy, Allied Indus. & Serv. Workers
Int’l Union, AFL-CIO, CLC v. Shell Oil Co., 602 F.3d 1087, 1091–92 (9th Cir. 2010).
28 Broadway Grill, Inc. v. Visa Inc., 856 F.3d 1274, 1279 (9th Cir. 2017); see, e.g., In re
Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. Co., 606 F.3d 379, 380 (7th Cir. 2010) (“[J]urisdiction under CAFA is
secure even though, after removal, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to eliminate the class
allegations.”).
29 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
Case 3:22-cv-00171-SLG Document 59 Filed 11/07/23 Page 6 of 8

Faulk v Jeld-Wen, Inc. et al. 	Case No. 3:22-cv-00171-JMK
Order re Pending Motions 	Page 7
leave when justice so requires.”30 	The decision to grant or deny leave to amend rests in
the “sole discretion of the trial court,”31 though the Ninth Circuit has instructed that
“[r]equests for leave should be granted with ‘extreme liberality.’”32
Consistent with the liberal spirit of Rule 15, courts should decline to grant
leave to amend only “if there is strong evidence of ‘undue delay, bad faith or dilatory
motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments
previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the
amendment, or futility of amendment, etc.’” (together, “the Foman factors”).33 	Among
these factors, “the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party . . . carries the greatest
weight.”34 Indeed, “[a]bsent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman
factors, there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.”35
“The party opposing amendment bears the burden of showing prejudice.”36
In their response in opposition, Defendants contend that allegations in the
proposed Second Amended Complaint contradict allegations Plaintiffs made in their
original complaint.37 They argue that Plaintiffs made these changes to remedy fatal errors
that were highlighted in prior filings.
30 Id.
31 Stanton v. Battelle Energy All., LLC., 83 F. Supp. 3d 937, 949 (D. Idaho 2015).
32 Brown v. Stored Value Cards, Inc., 953 F.3d 567, 574 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Moss v.
U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 972 (9th Cir. 2009)).
33 Sonoma Cnty. Ass’n of Retired Emps. v. Sonoma Cnty., 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir.
2013) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)).
34 Eminence Cap., LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003).
35 Id. (emphasis in the original).
36 DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987).
37 Docket 49 at 5–7.
Case 3:22-cv-00171-SLG Document 59 Filed 11/07/23 Page 7 of 8

Faulk v Jeld-Wen, Inc. et al. 	Case No. 3:22-cv-00171-JMK
Order re Pending Motions 	Page 8
The Court does not find any of the allegations in the proposed Second
Amendment 	Complaint 	directly 	contradict 	the 	allegation 	in 	the 	Plaintiffs’ 	original
Complaint. 	Accordingly, Defendants have not shown that they will be prejudiced by
amendment. Leave to file the proposed Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Strike First Amended
Class Action Complaint GRANTED, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand is DENIED as
MOOT, and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint is
GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of November, 2023, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Joshua M. Kindred
JOSHUA M. KINDRED
United States District Judge
Case 3:22-cv-00171-SLG Document 59 Filed 11/07/23 Page 8 of 8