Opinion
1:23-cv-00286-KJM-CSK
08-22-2024
GS Holistic, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Shaibi Abdulqawi d/b/a J's Smoke Shop and Shaibi Abdulqawi,Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff GS Holistic, LLC moves for leave to file a second amended complaint in this trademark action. No opposition was filed, and no defendant has appeared in this action. For the reasons set forth below, the court grants the motion.
Plaintiff originally filed this action in February 2023 against J's Smoke Shop d/b/a J's Smoke Shop and John Doe. See generally Compl., ECF No. 1. Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to amend the complaint to substitute the John Doe defendant. First Am. Mot., ECF No. 11. The motion was granted, see Prior Order (July 14, 2024), ECF No. 14, and plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, see generally First Am. Compl., ECF No. 15. Later, plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment against all defendants. See Default J. Mot., ECF No. 30. The motion was denied because plaintiff's allegations were insufficient for the purposes of default judgment. See Prior Order (Mar. 8, 2024) at 6, ECF No. 34. Plaintiff then filed the instant motion to amend the complaint. See Second Am. Mot., ECF No. 36. The court submitted the motion without a hearing as provided under Local Rule 230(g). Min. Order (July 3, 2024), ECF No. 39.
When citing page numbers on filings, the court uses the pagination automatically generated by the CM/ECF system.
Rule 15 permits a party to amend its complaint with the court's permission. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). “The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Id. The Ninth Circuit has long “stressed Rule 15's policy of favoring amendments” and has “applied this policy with liberality.” Ascon Props., Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989). Requests to amend are ordinarily denied only when they will result in undue delay or prejudice, when they are sought in bad faith, when a plaintiff has repeatedly failed to cure deficiencies, or when amendment would be futile. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
Here, plaintiff argues the Rule 15 standard is met and the court agrees. See Second Am. Mot. at 2. There is no indication the amendment would result in prejudice, as defendants have yet to appear, and there are no facts to indicate the amendment is sought in bad faith. Further, this is plaintiff's first attempt to cure deficiencies identified by the court. Finally, “[c]ourts within this District and Circuit often defer assessments of a proposed amendment's legal substance until after those amendments are filed and a defendant formally moves to dismiss.” Est. of Thomas v. Cnty. of Sacramento, No. 20-00903, 2021 WL 5280991, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2021) (collecting cases). Accordingly, the court grants the motion to amend. An amended complaint shall be filed within seven (7) days of the filing date of this order.
This order resolves ECF No. 36.
IT IS SO ORDERED.