Opinion
21-cv-01330-BAS-AGS
12-03-2021
WAVE NEUROSCIENCE, INC., Plaintiff, v. PEAKLOGIC, INC, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
(ECF No. 16)
HoN. Cynthia Bashant United States District Judge
Before the Court is Plaintiff Neuroscience, Inc.'s Motion for Leave to File its Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 16.) “In general, a court should liberally allow a party to amend its pleading.” Sonoma Cty. Ass'n of Retired Emps. v. Sonoma Cty., 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)); see also Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001) (“A district court ‘shall grant leave to amend freely when justice so requires.'” (quoting Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc))). Further, a party may amend its pleading without a court order where the opposing party consents in writing. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2).
Considering the broad policy favoring amendments to the pleadings and the joint nature of the request for leave to amend, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion. (ECF No. 16.) The Second Amended Complaint is deemed filed and served as of the date of this Order. Plaintiff is ORDERED to file on the docket a clean version of the Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 16-1.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.