Opinion

1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5 SAN JOSE DIVISION

6

7 GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 25-cv-04033-BLF

8 Plaintiff,

v. ORDER DENYING PFI’S MOTION

9 FOR LEAVE TO AMEND FIRST

POINT FINANCIAL, INC., AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM

10

Defendant. [Re: ECF No. 283]

11

12

13

14 Before the Court is Point Financial, Inc.’s (“PFI”) motion seeking leave to amend its first

15 amended counterclaim against Google LLC (“Google”). ECF No. 283. The Court held a hearing

16 on this motion on August 20, 2026, and issued its ruling on the record, which is memorialized

17

herein. For the reasons stated on the record and summarized below, PFI’s motion for leave to

18

amend its first amended counterclaim is DENIED.

19

20 I. BACKGROUND

21

The factual and procedural history of this case is well known to the parties. On May 8,

22

2025, Google filed a complaint against PFI. ECF No. 1. PFI filed its answer and counterclaim on

23

May 30, 2025. ECF No. 43. On October 6, 2025, PFI filed a motion for leave to amend its

24

counterclaim, seeking, in part, to add counterclaims for violations of the Defend Trade Secrets Act

25

26 (“DTSA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1831 et seq., and California’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”),

27 Cal. Civ. Code § 3426 et seq. ECF No. 123-1, Ex. 1 (“Amended Counterclaim”) ¶¶ 5–23. On

to add its trade secret claims. ECF No. 208 at 4–7. The Court’s order “place[d] no time limit” on

1

2 PFI’s filing of “a further request for leave to file an amended counterclaim to allege trade secret

3 misappropriation.” Id. at 7.

4 On June 11, 2026, PFI filed the instant motion, once again seeking to add counterclaims

5

for violations of the DTSA and CUTSA. ECF No. 283-1, Ex. 1 (“Second Amended

6

Counterclaim”) ¶¶ 30–62. Google opposes the motion. See ECF No. 302.

7

8 II. LEGAL STANDARD

9 PFI’s motion for leave to amend its first amended counterclaim is governed by Federal

10

Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) (“Rule 15”) because the court “place[d] no time limit” on PFI’s

11

motion for leave to amend. See ECF No. 208 at 7. Rule 15 directs the Court to grant leave

12

“freely . . . when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). This leave “is not to be granted

13

14 automatically,” but is instead subject to the following considerations: “(1) bad faith, (2) undue

15 delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of amendment; and (5) whether plaintiff has

16 previously amended his complaint.” In re W. States Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d

17

716, 738 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Of these factors, “prejudice to

18

the opposing party . . . carries the greatest weight” when deciding whether to grant leave to amend.

19

Eminence Cap., LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003).

20

21 III. DISCUSSION

22

PFI’s motion for leave to amend its first amended counterclaim would unfairly prejudice

23

Google. Fact and expert discovery are complete. The court has ruled on the Parties’ motions for

24

summary judgment. See ECF No. 336. To address these new DTSA and CUTSA claims, the Court

25

26 would need to reopen discovery, provide for additional briefing on dispositive motions, and

27 continue the trial date. Trial is set to begin in less than ninety days, on November 16, 2026, and

1 circumstances would prejudice Google by severely limiting its ability to properly prepare for and

2 || address PFI’s trade secret claims. See, e.g., Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Sols., Inc., 194

3 F.3d 980, 986 (9th Cir. 1999) (“A need to reopen discovery and therefore delay the proceedings

4 || supports a district court’s finding of prejudice from a delayed motion to amend the complaint.”).

5

6 IV. ORDER

7 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that PFI’s motion for leave to

8 amend its first amended counterclaim is DENIED without prejudice to raise trade secret claims in

9 Ila separate lawsuit. The Court notes that nothing in this order should be construed as an invitation

10

for PFI to file a separate trade secret suit, or as an indication of PFI’s likelihood of success on

11

these claims.

a 12

13

14 || Dated: August 24, 2026

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

16 United States District Judge

Z 18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28