Case: 3:17-cv-00595-jdp Document #: 121 Filed: 09/21/20 Page 1 of 3
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MOUNTAIN CREST SRL, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`ANHEUSER-BUSCH InBEV SA/NV,
`individually and as successor to InBev SA/NV and
`Interbrew S.A. and MOLSON COORS BREWING
`COMPANY, individually and as successor to Molson
`Canada Inc.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`OPINION and ORDER
`
`17-cv-595-jdp
`
`Plaintiff Mountain Crest SRL, LLC, which owns and operates Minhas Brewery in
`
`Monroe, Wisconsin, sued defendants Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV (ABI) and Molson Coors
`
`Brewing Company (Molson Coors) for alleged anticompetitive behavior in Ontario, Canada.
`
`The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and entered judgment. Now Mountain Crest
`
`moves for reconsideration of a portion of the decision concluding that Mountain Crest failed
`
`to plausibly allege that defendants violated federal antitrust law by conspiring to harm
`
`Mountain Crest through various marketing and distribution practices in beer stores in Ontario.
`
`Plaintiff doesn’t contend that the court erred in concluding that its allegations failed to state a
`
`plausible claim, but it asks the court for an opportunity to file an amended complaint that
`
`attempts to address the defects in the complaint. Dkt. 108.
`
`The court already addressed this question in the order granting defendants’ motion to
`
`dismiss:
`
`When a plaintiff fails to plead adequate facts, the general rule is
`that a plaintiff should have at least one opportunity to amend its
`complaint. But Mountain Crest has already amended its
`complaint twice. See Dkt. 30 and Dkt. 49. It did not ask for leave
`
`

`

`Case: 3:17-cv-00595-jdp Document #: 121 Filed: 09/21/20 Page 2 of 3
`
`to amend its complaint after the remand, and it does not request
`leave to amend now. Under these circumstances, the court sees
`no reason to give Mountain Crest leave to replead. See Alarm
`Detection Sys., Inc. v. Vill. of Schaumburg, 930 F.3d 812, 829 (7th
`Cir. 2019) (plaintiffs “have never requested leave to amend,” so
`“[t]hey . . . waived any right to replead”). The court will dismiss
`these claims with prejudice.
`
`Dkt. 106, at 20.
`
`Mountain Crest ignores this portion of the court’s order. Instead, Mountain Crest
`
`contends that the court should allow amendment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15,
`
`using the same liberal standard that governs a motion for leave to amend before judgment is
`
`entered. But even under Rule 15, a plaintiff isn’t entitled to limitless number of opportunities
`
`to amend. See Adams v. City of Indianapolis, 742 F.3d 720, 734 (7th Cir. 2014); U.S. ex rel. Fowler
`
`v. Caremark RX, LLC, 496 F.3d 730, 740 (7th Cir. 2007). This case is three years old, and
`
`plaintiff has already amended its complaint twice, both times in response to defendants’
`
`contentions that Mountain Crest’s conspiracy allegations against the defendants were
`
`deficient. See Dkt. 30 and Dkt. 49. And, as defendants point out, Mountain Crest expressly
`
`declined to amend its complaint after the remand, even after defendants suggested that it should.
`
`See Dkt. 118-1 (“[I]t does not make procedural sense for us to address our remaining dismissal
`
`arguments to the pending complaint if you plan to further amend it.”). And even after
`
`defendants asked for dismissal with prejudice in their motion to dismiss, Mountain Crest still
`
`didn’t ask for leave to replead in its opposition brief.
`
`This case raises complex issues and generated substantial briefing. Mountain Crest’s
`
`proposed amended complaint is more than 300 pages long. See Dkt. 110-1. Mountain Crest
`
`says that this is its first opportunity to address the shortcomings identified by the court in its
`
`order, but the court isn’t persuaded that its order raised any surprise to Mountain Crest.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 3:17-cv-00595-jdp Document #: 121 Filed: 09/21/20 Page 3 of 3
`
`Mountain Crest has had numerous opportunities to correct the defects in its complaint, but it
`
`declined to do so earlier. Under these circumstances, the court concludes that Mountain Crest
`
`isn’t entitled to hit the reset button again.
`
`ORDER
`
`IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Mountain Crest SRL, LLC’s motion to alter or amend
`
`the judgment and for leave to amend the complaint, Dkt. 108, is DENIED.
`
`Entered September 21, 2020.
`
`BY THE COURT:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/
`________________________________________
`JAMES D. PETERSON
`District Judge
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`