I've filed my fair share of motions to amend a case caption. Indeed, I recall my very first one.
It was a cold February morn, and the winds whipped through the loose boards that were all that stood between the library and the nor'easter steeping outdoors. Volume after volume was chosen and discarded as I searched for any guidance on what a motion to amend the caption should include -- what standard must be met? What oaths must be sworn?
Indeed, I recall the the sum total of the guidance on the issue in the federal rules was contained in Rule 10(a), which helpfully states:
[e]very pleading must have a caption with the court's name, a title, a file number, and a Rule 7(a) designation. The title of the complaint must name all parties .... "
In the end, I was forced to admit defeat. As it happened, no one opposed the motion and the Court granted it almost immediately. This is pretty much what's happened every time I've had to file such a motion, and so I have managed to avoid further trips to that haunted house of books.
So it was with some shock that I came across Judge Williams' opinion last week on a contested motion to amend the caption.
As you might have guessed, the procedural background in Cirba IP, Inc. v. VMware, Inc., C.A. No. 19-742-GBW (D. Del. Oct. 28, 2022) was pretty wild. The Plaintiffs won a jury verdict of more than 200 Million smackeroos, more than two years ago.
There were actually two related plaintiffs in the case -- Cirba, Inc., and Cirba IP, Inc. After trial, the defendants won a motion to dismiss Cirba Inc. for lack of Article III standing, successfully arguing that they were a bare licensee. Because some of the evidence at trial had been related to harm (and thus damages) suffered by the now-dismissed Cirba, Inc., the court ordered a new trial.
Before that trial could begin Cirba, Inc. (the dismissed one) and Cirba IP, Inc. (the other one) "amalgamated" into "Cirba, Inc." They moved to amend the caption to reflect the change and defendants opposed arguing, that this would be way too confusing in light of the Courts previous rulings on the separate entities.
In his opinion, Judge Williams noted the dearth of guidance on how to decide such a motion, ultimately deciding that the matter was within the Court's discretion:
Although few courts have addressed a party's request that seeks only to amend a caption, these decisions shed some light as to the appropriate legal standard. These courts have noted that "the caption of an action is only the handle to identify it" and that "the caption is chiefly for the court's administrative convenience." . . . Thus, "[i]n the absence of authority to the contrary, it appears that whether to amend a case caption is within the Court's discretion and should be based on factors such as promoting clarity and avoiding confusion."
Cirba, at 5 (cleaned up).
Ultimately, Judge Williams decided that amending the caption in these complicated circumstances would not serve "clarity" or "avoid confusion" and further noted the very real possibility of prejudice:
Here, unlike those cases, VMware both opposes post-amalgamated Cirba Inc.'s motion and raises genuine concerns of prejudice. For example, VMware asserts that updating the case caption may encourage post-amalgamated Cirba Inc. to advance arguments and evidence that blur the line between the competitive harms allegedly suffered by pre-amalgamated "Cirba Inc."-which were found to be prejudicial in the first jury trial because of Inc.' s later dismissal for lack of standing, ultimately warranting a new trial-and the post-amalgamated "Cirba Inc." These concerns, while best resolved at a later stage of litigation, are sufficient to warrant the Court to, in its discretion, deny post-amalgamated Cirba Inc.' s Motion to Update the Case Caption.
Id. at 9 (cleaned up).
I don't know that I'll ever see another contested motion to amend the caption. But if you do, dear reader, you now have something to cite.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
