GS Holistic, LLC v. Shaba Family Inc.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: July 24, 2023
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00332
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GS HOLISTIC, LLC Case No. 23-cv-0332-BAS-JLB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 13 v. LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT 14 SNACK N GO MART d/b/a SNACK N

GO MART, et al., 15 (ECF No. 7) Defendants. 16

18 Before the Court is Plaintiff GS Holistic, LLC’s unopposed motion for leave to file 19 its Amended Complaint. (Mot., ECF No. 7; Am. Compl., Ex. 1 to Mot., ECF No. 7-1.) 20 The Amended Complaint mirrors the initial Complaint in the sense that it contains the same 21 factual allegations concerning the events that give rise to this trademark-infringement 22 action. (Compare Compl. with Am. Compl.; see also Mot. ¶¶ 3–5.) The amendments 23 Plaintiff proffers are to (1) substitute Defendant Snack N Go Mart for Defendant Shaba 24 Family Inc, which does business as Snack N Go Mart, and (2) substitute the Doe Defendant 25 for Defendant Ghassan A. Shaba, the owner and operator of Snack N Go Mart. (Mot. ¶¶ 26 3–5.) 27 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that courts “should freely give 28 leave” to amend a pleading “when justice so requires.” While courts exercise broad 1 discretion in deciding whether to allow leave to amend, they have generally adopted a 2 || policy favoring amendment. See DCD Programs Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th 3 || Cir. 1987) (citing McCartin v. Norton, 674 F.2d 1317, 1321 (9th Cir. 1980)). Indeed, 4 ||“‘courts have interpreted Rule 15(a) liberally, allowing plaintiffs to . . . add or substitute 5 || defendants” under the provision. Cf Green v. Mattingly, 07 CV 1790 (ENV) (CLP), 2008 6 || WL 11438076, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2008); Tello v. Permanente, CV 18-07380-AB 7 (PIWx), 2020 WL 2510683, at *9 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2020) (identifying Rule 15(a)(2) as 8 ||the appropriate mechanism for substitution of a defendant). Accordingly, leave generally 9 ||is granted unless the court harbors concerns, “such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory 10 ||}motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments 11 previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the 12 ||amendment, [and] futility of amendment|.]” Forman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 13 || None of the concerns that typically weigh against leave to amend are present here. 14 Accordingly, the Court finds good cause exists to allow Plaintiff's proposed 15 |}amendments. Thus, the Court: 16 1. GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend (ECF No. 7). 17 2. ORDERS Plaintiff to file its Amended Complaint on the docket in this case 18 in accordance with Local Civil Rule 15.1. 19 3. DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to update the caption of the case and to issue a 20 new summons to match Defendants’ names in the Amended Complaint. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 || DATED: July 24, 2023 ( itl A (Hiphan 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28