City of Vista v. Telekom Transportation, LLC

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: May 29, 2020
• Docket: 3:20-cv-00514
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CITY OF VISTA, a California Case No.: 20-cv-0514-GPC-AHG Municipality, 12 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR Plaintiff, 13 LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST v. AMENDED COMPLAINT; 14 TELEKOM TRANSPORTATION, LLC, 15 [ECF No. 12] a California Limited Liability 16 Corporation, d/b/a VISTA TRANSPORT; DENYING MOTION FOR DEFAULT VISTA TRANSPORT LLC and DOES 1- 17 JUDGMENT 20, inclusive 18 Defendants. [ECF No. 14] 19 20 Before the Court is Plaintiff City of Vista’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Leave to File a 21 First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), filed on April 28, 2020. ECF No. 12. No 22 oppositions have been filed. Upon review of the moving papers, the Court finds good 23 cause to permit the filing of a First Amended Complaint. Additionally before the Court is 24 Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. ECF No. 14. 25 On March 19, 2020, Plaintiff filed the present action alleging four claims: (1) 26 federal trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. §1114; (2) false designation of origin, 27 false advertising and unfair competition pursuant to Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 28 1 U.S.C. §1125(a); (3) violation of the California Business & Professions Code §17000 et 2 seq.; (4) trademark dilution under 15 U.S.C. §1125(c). ECF No. 1. Plaintiff entered its 3 request for entry of default against Vista Transport LLC (“Vista”) on April 17, 2020. 4 ECF No. 7. The Clerk of Court entered default against Vista on April 20, 2020. ECF 5 No. 8. Plaintiff entered its request for entry of default against Telekom Transportation 6 LLC (“Telekom”) on April 28, 2020. ECF No. 11. On that same day, Plaintiff filed this 7 instant motion seeking leave to file a FAC. Plaintiff later filed a redlined version of the 8 FAC on April 29, 2020. ECF No. 13. 9 In the FAC, Plaintiff seeks to add Ali Hashim as a defendant in this action. 10 Plaintiff does not seek to add any additional claims or to alter any of the existing claims, 11 and notes that since this case is in its “early stages,” this amendment would “result in no 12 inconveniences imposed on any party.” Id. 13 Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that, after the initial 14 period for amendments as of right, pleadings may only be amended by leave of court, 15 which “[t]he court shall freely give when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 16 Courts commonly use four factors to determine the propriety of a motion for leave to 17 amend: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of 18 amendment. Ditto v. McCurdy, 510 F.3d 1070, 1078-79 (9th Cir. 2007); Loehr v. 19 Ventura Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist., 743 F.2d 1310, 1319 (9th Cir. 1984); Howey v. United 20 States, 481 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1973). “When weighing these factors . . . all 21 inferences should be made in favor of granting the motion to amend.” Hofstetter v. 22 Chase Home Fin., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 2d 1116, 1122 (N.D. Cal 2010) (citing Griggs v. 23 Pace Am. Grp., Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999)). 24 “Unless undue prejudice to the opposing party will result, a trial judge should 25 ordinarily permit a party to amend its complaint.” Howey, 481 F.2d at 1190 (motion to 26 amend should have been granted where there was showing that defendant would have 27 been prejudiced thereby). “Where there is a lack of prejudice to the opposing party and 28 || the amended complaint is obviously not frivolous, or made as a dilatory maneuver in bad 2 || faith, it is an abuse of discretion to deny such a motion.” Jd. at 1190-91. 3 Here, there is no indication that defendants would be prejudiced by the addition of 4 || Ali Hashim as a defendant.! Plaintiff states that “new information regarding Defendants’ 5 ||organization structure ... places Ali Hashim as the center of power and control of the 6 || operation.”” ECF No. 12 at 4. Further, the Court finds that Plaintiff's unopposed 7 ||amendment to the complaint will not produce any undue delay or prejudice to Telekom or 8 || Vista. Thus, the Court finds good cause to permit the filing of a First Amended 9 ||Complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for default judgment on the basis of the 10 original complaint is denied as moot. 11 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 12 (1) Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), ECF 13 No. 12, is hereby GRANTED. 14 (2) Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment, ECF No. 14, is DENIED AS MOOT. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 ||Dated: May 29, 2020 72 18 Hon. ae ake 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 | 26 ||! Counsel for both parties have failed to follow the applicable Local Rules and Federal Rules of Civil 97 || Procedure in their various filings. Both parties are encouraged to carefully review the Court’s Local Rules, the Chambers Civil Pretrial & Trial Procedures, and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when filing 28 || future pleadings in this action. 20-cv-0514-GPC-AHG