Innovative Bowling Products, LLC v. Exactacator, Inc.

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 CounterDefendants INNOVATIVE BOWLING 7 PRODUCTS, LLC and JOHN JAMESON and DAVID LYNCH [9] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [10] EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO DIVISION [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. [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 //// [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