Fate Therapeutics, Inc. v. Shoreline Biosciences, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Marilyn L. Huff (author)
Analysis
The court considered Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for leave to file a first amended complaint adding a new patent and Defendant Shoreline's motion for leave to file an amended answer and counterclaims. The court granted the Plaintiffs' motion and denied the Defendant's motion as moot.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for leave to file a first amended complaint“In light of the above, and after considering the Foman factors, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for leave to file a first amended complaint.” | agree with court The decision follows the law and the record. The motion was unopposed, and the parties stipulated that the amendment would not disrupt the existing scheduling order. The court correctly applied the Foman factors, which are the standard for evaluating motions to amend under Rule 15(a). |
Denying Defendant Shoreline's motion for leave to file an amended answer and counterclaims as moot“In addition, the Court denies as moot Defendant Shoreline’s motion for leave to file first amended answer and counterclaims.” | agree with court The decision is supported by the record. Plaintiffs represented that their proposed first amended complaint would render Shoreline's motion moot, and the parties filed a joint stipulation confirming that the new deadlines for responsive pleadings would accommodate the amendment. Denying a motion as moot when the underlying issue is resolved by a subsequent filing or stipulation is a standard procedural practice. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the relevant rule (Rule 15(a)(2)) and the applicable case law (Foman factors). The court relied on the parties' stipulation and representation that the amendment would not disrupt the schedule, which is sufficient to grant an unopposed motion to amend. The denial of the defendant's motion as moot is a logical consequence of granting the plaintiff's motion to amend, as the defendant's proposed answer would be responsive to the original complaint, which is being replaced.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FATE THERAPEUTICS, INC.; and Case No.: 22-cv-00676-H-MSB WHITEHEAD INSTITUTE FOR 12 BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH, ORDER: 13 Plaintiffs, (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 14 v. UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE 15 TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED SHORELINE BIOSCIENCES, INC.; and COMPLAINT; AND 16 DAN S. KAUFMAN, 17 Defendants. [Doc. Nos. 103, 105.]
18 (2) DENYING AS MOOT 19 DEFENDANT SHORELINE’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN 20 AMENDED ANSWER AND 21 COUNTERCLAIMS 22 [Doc. No. 88.] 23 On November 25, 2022, Defendant Shoreline Biosciences, Inc. (“Shoreline”) filed a 24 motion for leave to file an amended answer and counterclaims. (Doc. No. 88.) On 25 December 27, 2022, Plaintiffs Fate Therapeutics, Inc. (“Fate”) and Whitehead Institute of 26 Biomedical Research (“Whitehead”) filed an unopposed motion for leave to file a first 27 amended complaint. (Doc. No. 103.) In their motion for leave to file a first amended 28 1 complaint, Plaintiffs represent: (1) that Defendants Shoreline and Dan S. Kaufman have 2 agreed not to oppose Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a first amended complaint; (2) that 3 the addition of U.S. Patent No. 10,017,744 (“the ’744 Patent”) to the action will not disrupt 4 the Court’s August 12, 2022 scheduling order; and (3) that if Plaintiffs are permitted to file 5 their proposed first amended complaint, it will render moot Defendant Shoreline’s motion 6 for leave to file an amended answer and counterclaims. (Id.) 7 On December 27, 2022, the parties also filed a joint stipulation. (Doc. No. 105.) In 8 the joint filing, the parties agree and stipulate to the following: 9 1. The Parties will serve preliminary claim constructions and supporting 10 extrinsic evidence for the ’744 Patent, pursuant to Patent Local Rule 4.1(a)-(b), on or before 11 December 22, 2022. 12 2. The Parties will serve responsive constructions and extrinsic evidence for the 13 ’744 Patent, pursuant to Patent Local Rule 4.1(c)-(d), on or before December 29, 2022. 14 3. The parties will meet and confer concerning the ’744 Patent, pursuant to 15 Patent Local Rule 4.1(e), on January 3, 2023. 16 4. The parties will file an amended Joint Claim Construction Chart, Worksheet 17 and Hearing Statement, pursuant to Patent Local Rule 4.2, on or before January 6, 2023. 18 5. If Plaintiffs file an amended complaint adding the ’744 Patent, Defendants 19 will have 28 days from the date the amended complaint is filed to file any responsive 20 motion or pleading. 21 6. If Defendants file a motion in response to Plaintiffs’ amended complaint, 22 Defendants will not set the motion for hearing less than 42 days after the motion is filed. 23 (Id. at 1-2.) The parties represent that none of the above agreed upon deadlines will affect 24 the Court’s August 12, 2022 scheduling order.1 (Id. at 2.) 25 26 1 On December 27, 2022, the Court issued a proposed amended scheduling order. 27 (Doc. No. 104.) To the extent the parties believe that Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint or the addition of the ’744 Patent to the action requires any modifications to the dates and 28 1 In light of the above, and after considering the Foman factors, the Court grants 2 || Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for leave to file a first amended complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. 3 ||P. 15(a)(2); Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Sharkey v. O’Neal, 778 F.3d 767, 4 (9th Cir. 2015); Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004). Plaintiffs 5 || must file their proposed first amended complaint within seven (7) days from the date this 6 order is filed, and Defendants must file any responsive motion or pleading to Plaintiffs’ 7 || first amended complaint within 28 days from the date the first amended complaint is 8 || filed. In addition, the Court denies as moot Defendant Shoreline’s motion for leave to file 9 first amended answer and counterclaims. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 || DATED: December 27, 2022 | | | ul | | | MARILYN HUFF, DistrictJudge 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 a7Ho002C*i“‘ 28 and deadlines, the parties may jointly file any such proposed modifications by January 9, 2023. (See id. at 2.)