Wave Neuroscience, Inc. v. PeakLogic, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James C. Mahan (author)
Analysis
The court considered Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. The court granted the motion, deeming the Second Amended Complaint filed and served, and ordered the Plaintiff to file a clean version on the docket.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint granted“the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion. (ECF No. 16.)” | agree with court The order cites the Ninth Circuit's liberal standard for amendment and notes the 'joint nature' of the request, implying consent or lack of opposition. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), leave to amend should be freely given, especially when the opposing party consents or the request is joint. The decision follows directly from the cited authorities and the procedural posture described. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the well-established Ninth Circuit standard for leave to amend, citing appropriate binding authority. It notes the 'joint nature' of the request, which supports the grant under Rule 15(a). The reasoning is sufficient for a procedural order of this type.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WAVE NEUROSCIENCE, INC., Case No. 21-cv-01330-BAS-AGS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 13 v. LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 14 PEAKLOGIC, INC, et al., 15 Defendants. (ECF No. 16)
17 Before the Court is Plaintiff Neuroscience, Inc.’s Motion for Leave to File its Second 18 Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 16.) “In general, a court should liberally allow a party to 19 amend its pleading.” Sonoma Cty. Ass’n of Retired Emps. v. Sonoma Cty., 708 F.3d 1109, 20 1117 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)); see also Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health 21 Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001) (“A district court ‘shall grant leave to amend 22 freely when justice so requires.’” (quoting Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 23 2000) (en banc))). Further, a party may amend its pleading without a court order where 24 the opposing party consents in writing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 25 Considering the broad policy favoring amendments to the pleadings and the joint 26 nature of the request for leave to amend, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion. (ECF 27 No. 16.) The Second Amended Complaint is deemed filed and served as of the date of this 28 1 Order. Plaintiffis ORDERED to file on the docket a clean version of the Second Amended 2 || Complaint. (ECF No. 16-1.) 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 A 5 || DATED: December 3, 2021 Ypilag | Mahan. é 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28