Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cvent, Inc. v. Rainfocus, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division

September 7, 2018

CVENT, INC., Plaintiff,
RAINFOCUS, INC., et al., Defendants.

          Robert J. Shelby District Judge


          Dirctin B. Pead United States Magistrate Judge


         This matter was referred to the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). (ECF No. 64). Before the court is Plaintiff's, Cvent, Inc. (“Cvent”), Motion to Amend Cvent's Amended Complaint (“First Motion”). (ECF No. 154.) Prior to the court issuing a ruling on the Motion, Cvent filed a second Motion to Amend Cvent's Amended Complaint (“Second Motion”). (ECF No. 168.) Both motions (collectively referred to herein as the “Motions”) have been completely briefed.

         The court has carefully reviewed the moving papers submitted by the parties. Pursuant to civil rule 7-1(f) of the Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the District of Utah, the court has concluded that oral argument is not necessary and will determine the motions on the basis of the written papers. For the reasons set forth in Cvent's Motions and herein, the court recommends that Cvent's First Motion be GRANTED.


         On March 24, 2017, Cvent filed its Complaint against RainFocus, Inc. and its former officers and employees (“RainFocus” or “Defendants”). (ECF No. 2.) On April 4, 2017, Cvent filed an Amended Complaint (“Amended Complaint”) adding an additional party as a defendant. (ECF No. 36.) The Amended Complaint pleads claims for violations of the Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, the Utah Uniform Trade Secret Act, and California's Uniform Trade Secrets Act, breach of contract, and breach of confidence. Specifically, Cvent claims this is an “action for trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and intentional interference with contracts relating to Cvent's established client relationships, confidential and proprietary information, and trade secrets that are at the heart of Cvent's highly customized ‘large conference' event management software technology and related services.” (ECF No. 36 at 2.)

         Defendants filed their answer on April 18, 2017. (ECF No. 52.) Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff's moved for a Preliminary Injunction. (ECF No. 65.) On August 8, 2017, the court entered the initial Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 101.) The court amended the scheduling order on November 17, 2017, and then for a second time on February 27, 2018. (ECF Nos. 147 and 153.) The docket for the case exposes that between late April and December of 2017, the parties were addressing the Preliminary Injunction and some discovery disputes.

         On March 20, 2018, Cvent filed its First Motion and then the Second Motion on May 1, 2018. Since the filing of the Motions, the parties participated in mediation and have a second mediation scheduled for December, 2018. (ECF No. 177 at 2.) As a result, the parties requested the court to amend the scheduling order for a third time to phase certain discovery to aid the parties in preparation for the second round of mediation and to postpone other deadlines until the mediation is conducted. (ECF No. 177 at 2.) The court supported the parties in their request and entered the Third Amended Scheduling Order on August 9, 2018. (ECF No. 178.) Under the Third Amended Scheduling Order, fact discovery does not cutoff until February 22, 2019. (ECF No. 178 at 6.) The Second Amended Scheduling Order, however, is the operative order that is germane to the Motions for which the court must decide. Cvent's cutoff date for filing motions to amend pleadings was May 4, 2018 and the Defendants' cutoff date was May 18, 2018. (ECF No. 153 at 5). Cvent timely filed the Motions prior to the expiration of the controlling date.

         III. DISPUTE

         Cvent argues it should be granted leave to further amend the Amended Complaint to add four (4) additional claims. Cvent further claims good cause exists to amend because (1) Defendants will not be prejudiced, (2) Cvent did not delay in moving to amend; and (3) the proposed amendments are not futile.

         Accordingly, RainFocus argues that Cvent's Motion should be denied because of (1) undue prejudice, (2) undue delay, and (3) futility.


         Under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend its pleading with the court's leave. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). “The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Id. The Tenth Circuit has called this a “liberal” standard that “reflects the basic policy that pleadings should enable a claim to be heard on its merits.” Calderon v. Kan. Dep't of Soc. & Rehab. Servs., 181 F.3d 1180, 1186 (10th Cir. 1999). Nevertheless, a district court may deny a motion to amend for reasons such as undue delay, ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.