The opinion
1 BROWNE GEORGE ROSS LLP
Andrew A. August (State Bar No. 112851)
2 aaugust@bgrfirm.com
Kevin F. Rooney (State Bar No. 184096)
3 krooney@bgrfirm.com
101 California Street, Suite 1225
4 San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: (415) 391-7100
5 Facsimile: (415) 391-7198
6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Counter-
Defendants INNOVATIVE BOWLING
7 PRODUCTS, LLC and JOHN JAMESON and
DAVID LYNCH
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO DIVISION
11
12
INNOVATIVE BOWLING PRODUCTS, Case No. 2:19-cv-00177-MCE-AC
13 LLC, a Pennsylvania limited liability
company and JOHN JAMESON, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
14 LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED
Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT
15
vs. Judge: Hon. Morrison C. England
16 Date: October 17, 2019
EXACTACATOR, INC., a California Time: 2:00 p.m.
17 corporation, Crtrm.: 7
18 Defendant. Trial Date: None Set
19 EXACTACATOR, INC., a California
corporation,
20
Counterclaimant,
21
vs.
22
INNOVATIVE BOWLING PRODUCTS,
23 LLC, a Pennsylvania limited liability
company and JOHN JAMESON, an
24 individual and DAVID LYNCH, an
individual,
25
Counter-defendants.
26
27
1 Having reviewed Plaintiffs Innovative Bowling Product’s and John Jameson’
2 Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 15), as well as Defendants’
3 Statement of Non-Opposition to said request to file an amended pleading,1 the Court
4 rules as follows.
5 “The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
6 15(a)(2). In ruling on a motion for leave to amend, “a court must be guided by the
7 underlying purpose of Rule 15 to facilitate decision on the merits, rather than on the
8 pleadings or technicalities.” United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981).
9 The opposing party bears the burden of showing “undue delay, bad faith, undue
10 prejudice, or futility of amendment on the part of the moving party.” Hip Hop Beverage
11 Corp. v. RIC Representacoes Importacao e Comerico Ltda., 220 F.R.D. 614, 620 (C.D.
12 Cal. 2003).
13 The proposed First Amended Complaint includes allegations discovered by
14 Plaintiffs during discovery. Thereafter, Plaintiffs promptly notified Defendant,
15 Exactacator, Inc., that Plaintiffs intended to file an amended complaint based on the
16 information obtained through discovery. Granting leave to amend would facilitate a
17 decision of this action on the merits. Defendant has not shown undue delay, bad faith,
18 undue prejudice or futility of amendment. Good cause having being shown, Plaintiffs’
19 Motion (ECF No. 15) is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiffs are directed to file the First
20 Amended Complaint attached to its motion as Exhibit A not later than ten (10) days after
21 the date this Order is electronically filed.
22 ////
23 ////
24 ////
25 ////
26
27
1 The Court recognizes that the Motion was opposed to the extent it sought sanctions
1
2 Regarding Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions contained within the Motion, the Court
3 will entertain that request only to the extent a separate motion is filed which permits the
4 issue to be fully briefed.
5 IT IS SO ORDERED.
6 DATED: November 19, 2019
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27