Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—N.D. Cal.: Car dealer management system provider Tekion denied amendment of its complaint against rival CDK, (Aug 12, 2026)

By Kenneth H. Ryesky, M.B.A., J.D.

Complaint amendment approval was sought because the pleading amendment deadline, established as the very first item in a scheduling order by the court, had passed nine months earlier.

The federal district court in San Francisco has denied a motion by an automobile dealership management system to file an amended complaint in an antitrust lawsuit against a rival. The motion was made more than nine months following the deadline set forth in a scheduling order. The court found that good cause for late amendment was not shown, and that amendment would prejudice the other party (Tekion Corp. v. CDK Global, LLC, No. 3:24-cv-08879-JSC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2026)).

Background. Technology, governmental regulation, finance, and industry practice have imposed complex recordkeeping and data reporting requirements upon automobile dealers, giving rise to a market for automobile dealership management systems (DMS) to enable an automobile dealer, especially a franchised new car dealer, to profitably operate in compliance with the rules, regulations, and demands of the business.

CDK Global, LLC (CDK) commands approximately 60 percent of the revenue from the overall DMS market, with an even greater share from the large enterprise dealer segment of that market. DMS provider Tekion Corp. (Tekion) sued CDK, alleging monopolization under the Sherman Act, violations of California statutes, and common law claims. After Tekion's monopolization claims survived dismissal, the court issued a scheduling order that set August 7, 2025 as the "Deadline to Move to Amend Pleadings."

On May 15, 2026, Tekion moved for leave to file a first amended complaint. The proposed amendment would address (1) CDK's DMS market share; (2) the submarkets in the DMS market; and (3) CDK's anticompetitive behavior.

Amendment of complaint-good cause. The court denied Tekion's motion to file an amended complaint, finding that Tekion had failed to show the requisite good cause [Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4)]. Tekion had sought to base its good cause on information produced during discovery by CDK after the August 7, 2025 deadline. Tekion did not explain how that information was unavailable before CDK produced it during discovery, noting that such information regarding Tekion's market share had been publicly available at the time Tekion initiated the lawsuit, including in a separate case in a different district court in which CDK had been sued by other FMS purveyors [In re Dealer Management Systems Antitrust Litigation, 581 F. Supp. 3d 1029 (N.D. Ill. 2022)].

Tekion's initial complaint alleged a submarket of "large enterprise franchise dealers," which it sought to replace with "Large Franchise Dealership Groups," which it sought to subdivide into "multi-store franchise dealership groups and even larger enterprise franchise dealership groups." Tekion asserted that it did not fully understand the submarkets at the time of the original complaint before it had obtained additional information documents during discovery. On this score, Tekion did not adequately explain how a report from 2022 would support its proposed amendments.

Tekion sought to amend its original complaint regarding CDK's policies of withholding release of individual automobile dealership information to the dealerships until 30 days before contract expiry. While Tekion had asserted that it first learned of this in an email produced during discovery in April 2026, such a policy had been referenced in materials produced during discovery prior to the pleading amendment deadline in the case scheduling order.

Amendment of complaint-prejudice. The judge found that amendment of Tekion's complaint would "delay the litigation and require the Court to extend the fact discovery cut-off, thereby prejudicing CDK." The court was not persuaded by Tekion’s insistence that existing discovery should suffice, because introducing new market and submarket allegations would undoubtably require new fact discovery by both Tekion and CDK, and require the parties to revise any expert discovery to date. The court had already been briefed on CDK's early motion for summary judgment; the proposed amended complaint would "drastically affect" if not moot that motion.

Having denied amendment under Rule 16(b), the court dispensed with an analysis of Tekion's amendment motion under Rule 15(a).

The Case is No. 3:24-cv-08879-JSC.

Judge: Corley, J.

Attorneys: Tyler Griffin Newby (Fenwick & West LLP) for Tekion Corp. Daniel Wilson (Susman Godfrey LLP) for CDK Global, LLC.

Companies: Tekion Corp.; CDK Global, LLC

Cases: Antitrust CaliforniaNews