GS Holistic, LLC v. Plaza Linda

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GS Holistic, LLC, No. 2:22-cv-02088-KJM-CSK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 Plaza Linda d/b/a Sticky Smoke Shop and 15 Vape, and Jose A Sepulveda, 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff originally filed this trademark action against Plaza Linda d/b/a Sticky Smoke 19 | Shop and Vape and Jose A Sepulveda. See generally Compl., ECF No. 1. When defendants did 20 | not appear, plaintiff requested entries of default, see First Default Req., ECF No. 13, Second 21 | Default Req., ECF No. 15, and the clerk entered defaults, see First Default, ECF No. 14; Second 22 | Default, ECF No. 16. In denying plaintiff's motion for default judgment, the magistrate judge 23 | vacated the entries of default and ordered plaintiff to file an amended complaint. See Prior Order 24 | (Dec. 22, 2023), ECF No. 26; First Am. Compl., ECF No. 28. Plaintiff subsequently “performed 25 | further investigation” and determined that the “correct” defendants are Samir Mohammed Ali 26 | Shareef, individually and d/b/a Sticky Smoke Shop and Vape. See Mot. at 2,1 ECF No. 44.

' When citing page numbers on filings, the court uses the pagination automatically generated by the CM/ECF system.

1 | Plaintiff moves to amend the complaint by substituting defendants. See generally id. The 2 | motion is unopposed. The court submitted the motion without oral argument as provided under 3 | Local Rule 230(g). Min. Order (July 29, 2024), ECF No. 46. 4 Rule 15 permits a party to amend its complaint with the court’s permission. See Fed. R. 5 | Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Jd. The Ninth 6 | Circuit has long “stressed Rule 15’s policy of favoring amendments” and has “applied this policy 7 | with liberality.” Ascon Props., Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989). 8 | Requests to amend are ordinarily denied only when they will result in undue delay or prejudice, 9 | when they are sought in bad faith, when a plaintiff has repeatedly failed to cure deficiencies or 10 | when amendment would be futile. See Foman vy. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Here, while 11 | the original complaint was filed over a year and a half ago, no facts indicate plaintiff seeks this 12 | amendment in bad faith, this motion seeks to amend the complaint for only the second time, and 13 | there is no indication an amendment would be futile. Accordingly, given Rule 15’s liberal policy, 14 | the court grants the motion to amend. An amended complaint shall be filed within seven (7) 15 | days of the filed date of this order. 16 This order resolves ECF No. 44. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 DATED: August 22, 2024. | / 19 50 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE