Opinion
2:22-cv-00093-KJM-JDP
10-11-2022
Urban Sophistication Ltd., Plaintiff, v. Ajmall Gulham, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
In this trademark infringement case, plaintiff Urban Sophistication Ltd. moves to file a second amended complaint to substitute defendant “Does” with Jackson Jaillet, Samuel Peterson, Irid Nils and Luke Donnelly, and to add Zhi Wei Chen as a new defendant. Mot. at 2, ECF No. 31. The motion is unopposed. Since filing the most recent complaint, plaintiff discovered the identities of defendant Does and the new defendant by filing Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) complaints with the National Arbitration Forum. Mot. Mem. at 4-5, 7, ECF No. 31-1. For the reasons below, the court grants the motion.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides the court should “freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires” and the Ninth Circuit has “stressed Rule 15's policy of favoring amendments.” Ascon Properties, Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989). However, “the liberality in granting leave to amend is subject to several limitations.” Id. “Courts may decline to grant leave to amend only if there is strong evidence of ‘undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of amendment, etc.'” Sonoma Cty. Ass'n of Retired Emps. v. Sonoma Cty., 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)).
Here, the court finds leave to amend is warranted. The court has not yet held a pretrial conference and there is no trial date pending. At this early stage of this case, the court finds no evidence of undue delay or prejudice to the defendants. Moreover, the plaintiff did not know the identifies of the defendants when it filed the first amended complaint and subsequently took steps promptly to discover their identities. See Mot. Mem. at 7. The court also finds no indication of bad faith or dilatory motive. Finally, plaintiff has not repeatedly failed to cure deficiencies nor is there any indication amendment would be futile.
For the reasons stated above, the court grants the plaintiff's motion. The second amended complaint must be filed within fourteen days of this order.
This order resolves ECF No. 31.
IT IS SO ORDERED.