NJOY, LLC v. Imiracle (HK) Limited

Opinion

NJOY, LLC, Case No. 24-cv-00397-BAS-JLB

Plaintiff, ORDER: v. (1) GRANTING MOTION FOR IMIRACLE (HK) LTD., et al., LEAVE TO FILE SECOND Defendants. AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF No. 211); AND

(2) GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ALLOW THE NON-ELECTRONIC FILING OF EXHIBIT 9 TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (ECF No. 228)

Plaintiff NJOY, LLC moves for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 211.) NJOY seeks leave to file a Second Amended Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) and 16(b). (Id.) NJOY attaches its proposed amended pleading and a redlined version. (ECF Nos. 211-1 to 211-2.) For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. “In general, a court should liberally allow a party to amend its pleading.” Sonoma Cty. Ass’n of Retired Emps. v. Sonoma Cty., 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)); see also Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001) (“A district court shall grant leave to amend freely when justice so requires.” (citation modified)). “Courts may decline to grant leave to amend only if there is strong evidence of ‘undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of amendment, etc.’” Sonoma Cty., 708 F.3d at 1117 (alteration in original) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). NJOY’s moving papers note: “Counsel for Plaintiff met with counsel for Defendants Imiracle (HK) Ltd. and Shenzhen iMiracle Technology Co., Ltd. on July 1, 2025. Counsel for Plaintiff met with counsel for Defendants Empire Imports LLC, SV3, LLC d/b/a Mi- One, and Thesy, LLC d/b/a Element Vape on July 3, 2025. Defendants did not indicate any particular position on the motion.” (ECF No. 211.) Under this Court’s Standing Order for Civil Cases, NJOY selected a hearing date of August 15, 2025. (Id.) That hearing date, which was for briefing purposes only, meant any opposition to the motion had to be filed no later than August 1, 2025, under Civil Local Rule 7.1. No opposition was filed, however. Further, Plaintiffs have demonstrated that there is good cause for Plaintiffs’ proposed amendments and that there is no evidence of undue delay, prejudice, or any other grounds that justify denying NJOY leave to amend. (See id.) The Court thus grants NJOY’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Separately, the Court also grants NJOY’s Motion for Leave to Allow the Non- Electronic Filing of Exhibit 9 to Motion for Preliminary Injunction as to Defendant Empire Imports, LLC via USB Drive. (ECF No. 228.) NJOY is permitted serve Exhibit 9 via USB Drive due to file length. For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS NJOY’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 211.) NJOY shall file its Second Amended Complaint on the docket no later than October 10, 2025. The Court also GRANTS NJOY’s Motion for Leave to Allow the Non-Electronic Filing of Exhibit 9 to Motion for Preliminary Injunction as to Defendant Empire Imports, LLC via USB Drive. (ECF No. 228.) NJOY shall lodge Exhibit 9 with the Clerk of Court no later than October 10, 2025. ~ DATED: September 26, 2025 ( Lilia. (Duhark H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 48