Bell Northern Research, LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
Defendants moved for leave to amend their answer to add a lack of standing defense, which Plaintiff opposed solely on grounds of futility. The court granted the motion, finding that the defense did not face inevitable defeat on summary judgment.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendants' motion for leave to amend their answer to add a thirteenth affirmative defense of lack of standing is granted.“Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the futility standard for leave to amend. The plaintiff argued futility based on the inability to prove facts, which is a summary judgment standard. The court correctly noted that futility requires 'inevitability of defeat on summary judgment' and found that the record did not establish such inevitability, especially considering potential discovery. This is a standard and correct application of Rule 15(a) principles in the Ninth Circuit. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise but legally sound. It correctly identifies the standard for futility (inevitability of defeat on summary judgment) and applies it to the specific argument raised by the plaintiff (insufficiency of facts). The court appropriately distinguishes between pleading sufficiency and summary judgment merits, which is the correct legal framework for evaluating futility objections to amendments.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH, LLC, Case No.: 18-CV-2864-CAB-BLM 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 12 v. AMEND ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 13 LG ELECTRONICS, INC. et al., 14 Defendants. [Doc. No. 43] 15 16 AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS 17 18 19 Defendants have filed a motion for leave to amend their answer to add allegations to 20 their third affirmative defense of license and exhaustion, and to add a thirteenth affirmative 21 defense of lack of standing. Plaintiff does not oppose the amendment to the third 22 affirmative defense, but it opposes the addition of the lack of standing defense solely on 23 the grounds of futility. Plaintiff’s argument in support of its opposition focuses primarily 24 on whether Defendants can prove facts sufficient to succeed on the lack of standing defense 25 and not on whether the defense is adequately pled. Based on the evidence in the record 26 and taking into consideration the possibility of additional evidence unearthed in discovery, 27 the Court is not persuaded that Defendants’ lack of standing defense faces inevitable defeat 28 on summary judgment. Cf. California v. Neville Chem. Co., 358 F.3d 661, 673-74 (9th 1 || Cir. 2004) (“Futility includes the inevitability of a claim’s defeat on summary judgment.”’) 2 || (quoting Johnson v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 834 F.2d 721, 724 (9th Cir. 1987)). Accordingly, 3 || Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. Defendants shall file their First Amended Answer and 4 ||Counterclaims on or before September 5, 2019. 5 It is SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: September 3, 2019 € Z 7 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28