Oakley, Inc. v. Elite Tek
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Larry Alan Burns (author)
Analysis
Defendant Elite Tek moved for leave to file amended counterclaims against Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. The court granted the motion and vacated the hearing scheduled for October 7, 2019.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Leave to File Amended Counterclaims granted“Elite Tek’s motion is GRANTED, (Dkt. 24), and the hearing currently set for October 7, 2019 is VACATED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard from Rule 15(a)(2) and Ninth Circuit precedent, noting that none of the factors for denial (delay, bad faith, futility, etc.) were present because it was the first amendment and within the scheduling order. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable rule (Rule 15(a)(2)) and the controlling Ninth Circuit standard for evaluating a motion to amend. The court explicitly addresses the factors for denial and finds them inapplicable based on the record (first amendment, within scheduling order). The result follows logically from the cited law and the stated facts.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 OAKLEY, INC., Case No.: 18cv2609-LAB (KSC) 40 Plaintt, | ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR V. LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED 11 ELITE TEK, et al. COUNTERCLAIMS [Dkt. 24] 12 Defendants. 13 14 Defendant and Counter-Claimant Elite Tek seeks leave to file amended 15 |! counterclaims against Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant Oakley, Inc. Rule 15(a)(2) 16 requires that “the Court. . . freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Among 17 || the reasons for denying leave are “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of 18 movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, 19 || undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and] 20 || futility of amendment ....” Schlacter-Jones v. Gen. Tel. of California, 936 F.2d 435, 443 21 || (9th Cir. 1991). None of those apply here, as this is Elite Tek’s first amendment and the 22 || proposed amendment occurs within the period set by the Court’s scheduling order. See 23 || Dkt. 23 9 1. Elite Tek’s motion is GRANTED, (Dkt. 24), and the hearing currently set for 24 || October 7, 2019 is VACATED. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: September 10, 2019 lau 4 (Ayn Hon. Larry Alan Burns 27 Chief United States District Judge 28