Integrity Medical Product Solutions, LLC v. Seroclinix Corporation

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: September 8, 2023
• Docket: 3:22-cv-00785
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 INTEGRITY MEDICAL PRODUCT Case No. 22-cv-0785-BAS-BLM SOLUTIONS, LLC, 12 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S Plaintiff, 13 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE v. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 14 (ECF No. 17) SEROCLINIX CORPORATION, 15 Defendant. 16 17

18 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a First Amended 19 Complaint. (ECF No. 17.) Through the amendment, Plaintiff seeks to add two additional 20 corporations, Seroclinix Corporation and Seroclinix Labs, Inc., both incorporated in the 21 State of Delaware, and Howard Lee as defendants to the suit. (Id.) Additionally, Plaintiff 22 seeks to allege Howard Lee operated the two Delaware corporations and Defendant, a 23 Canadian corporation, as a single business enterprise. (Id.) 24 Plaintiff filed this action against Seroclinix Corporation for breach of contract on 25 May 31, 2022. (ECF No. 1.) On August 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed a declaration representing 26 that through research it determined that Howard Lee, who signed the contract with Plaintiff, 27 had formed and operated two corporations with the name “Seroclinix Corporation”: one 28 incorporated in the State of Delaware and one incorporated in the Province of Ontario, 1 |}Canada. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff had previously named in its complaint the Seroclinix 2 || Corporation incorporated in the Province of Ontario. (ECF No. 1.) The previously named 3 || Defendant Seroclinix Corporation, incorporated in Ontario, has not appeared before the 4 || Court. 5 “In general, a court should liberally allow a party to amend its pleading.” Sonoma 6 || Cty. Ass’n of Retired Emps. v. Sonoma Cty., 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing 7 || Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)); see also Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 8 (9th Cir. 2001). “Courts may decline to grant leave to amend only if there is strong 9 || evidence of ‘undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated 10 || failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the 11 || opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of amendment, etc.’” 12 || Sonoma Cty., 708 F.3d at 1117 (alteration in original) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 13 || 178, 182 (1962)). 14 Here, in light of (1) the broad policy favoring amendments to pleadings and (11) the 15 || fact that Defendant has not appeared before the Court, the Court GRANTS □□□□□□□□□□□ 16 motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint. On or before September 15, 2023, 17 || Plaintiff shall file the proposed pleading attached to its motion as Exhibit A as its First 18 || Amended Complaint. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 / yy 21 || DATED: September 8, 2023 (uf A (Hiphan 6 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28