iTalent Corporation v. Raju Kotha, et al.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: May 21, 2026
• Docket: 5:25-cv-06365
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 ITALENT CORPORATION, Case No. 25-cv-06365-BLF

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 9 v. LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 10 RAJU KOTHA, et al., [Re: ECF No. 89] 11 Defendants.

12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiff iTalent Corporation’s (“itD”) motion for leave to file a second 14 amended complaint. ECF No. 89 (“Mot.”). No opposition has been filed, and the deadline to 15 respond has passed. See Civil L.R. 7-3(a). The Court finds that this motion is suitable for 16 resolution without oral argument and VACATES the hearing set for October 22, 2026. The 17 motion for leave to amend is GRANTED as discussed below. 18 This action arises from an alleged conspiracy among a number of defendants to wrest 19 control of itD’s effective subsidiary and spin it off as a competitor. According to itD, its 20 continued investigation has revealed that the conspiracy “ran far deeper than initially understood,” 21 necessitating the addition of several new defendants, updated allegations, and a new claim. Mot. 22 at 2–3. 23 itD’s motion is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, because the motion was 24 filed within the period set by the Court for seeking leave to amend under the liberal standard of 25 Rule 15 rather than the more demanding standard of Rule 16. See ECF No. 86. Rule 15 provides 26 that “[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. 27 P. 15(a)(2). “This policy is to be applied with extreme liberality.” Eminence Cap., LLC ] deciding whether to grant leave to amend, the Court must consider the factors set forth by the 2 Supreme Court in Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962), and discussed at length by the Ninth 3 Circuit in Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2003). A district court 4 || ordinarily must grant leave to amend unless one or more of the Foman factors is present: 5 (1) undue delay, (2) bad faith or dilatory motive, (3) repeated failure to cure deficiencies by 6 || amendment, (4) undue prejudice to the opposing party, or (5) futility of amendment. /d. at 1052. 7 Having considered itD’s moving papers and proposed second amended complaint (ECF 8 || No. 90-1), the Court does not find any of the Foman factors to be present here. The motion is also 9 || unopposed. Accordingly, under Rule 15’s liberal standard, Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend 10 || is GRANTED. itD SHALL file its second amended complaint by May 28, 2026. 1] 12 || Dated: May 21, 2026

13 Haiinfacdan TH LABSON FREEMAN Y 14 United States District Judge

15 16

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28