NJOY, LLC v. Imiracle (HK) Limited

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NJOY, LLC, Case No. 24-cv-00397-BAS-JLB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING MOTION FOR 14 IMIRACLE (HK) LTD., et al., LEAVE TO FILE SECOND 15 Defendants. AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF No. 211); AND 16

17 (2) GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ALLOW THE 18 NON-ELECTRONIC FILING 19 OF EXHIBIT 9 TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 20 INJUNCTION (ECF No. 228) 21

22 Plaintiff NJOY, LLC moves for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. (ECF 23 No. 211.) NJOY seeks leave to file a Second Amended Complaint under Federal Rules of 24 Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) and 16(b). (Id.) NJOY attaches its proposed amended pleading 25 and a redlined version. (ECF Nos. 211-1 to 211-2.) For the following reasons, the Court 26 GRANTS the Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. 27 “In general, a court should liberally allow a party to amend its pleading.” Sonoma 28 Cty. Ass’n of Retired Emps. v. Sonoma Cty., 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing 1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)); see also Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 2 712 (9th Cir. 2001) (“A district court shall grant leave to amend freely when justice so 3 requires.” (citation modified)). “Courts may decline to grant leave to amend only if there 4 is strong evidence of ‘undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, 5 repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed undue prejudice 6 to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of amendment, 7 etc.’” Sonoma Cty., 708 F.3d at 1117 (alteration in original) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 8 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). 9 NJOY’s moving papers note: “Counsel for Plaintiff met with counsel for Defendants 10 Imiracle (HK) Ltd. and Shenzhen iMiracle Technology Co., Ltd. on July 1, 2025. Counsel 11 for Plaintiff met with counsel for Defendants Empire Imports LLC, SV3, LLC d/b/a Mi- 12 One, and Thesy, LLC d/b/a Element Vape on July 3, 2025. Defendants did not indicate 13 any particular position on the motion.” (ECF No. 211.) Under this Court’s Standing Order 14 for Civil Cases, NJOY selected a hearing date of August 15, 2025. (Id.) That hearing date, 15 which was for briefing purposes only, meant any opposition to the motion had to be filed 16 no later than August 1, 2025, under Civil Local Rule 7.1. No opposition was filed, 17 however. Further, Plaintiffs have demonstrated that there is good cause for Plaintiffs’ 18 proposed amendments and that there is no evidence of undue delay, prejudice, or any other 19 grounds that justify denying NJOY leave to amend. (See id.) The Court thus grants 20 NJOY’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). 21 Separately, the Court also grants NJOY’s Motion for Leave to Allow the Non- 22 Electronic Filing of Exhibit 9 to Motion for Preliminary Injunction as to Defendant Empire 23 Imports, LLC via USB Drive. (ECF No. 228.) NJOY is permitted serve Exhibit 9 via USB 24 Drive due to file length. 25 CONCLUSION 26 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS NJOY’s Motion for Leave to File 27 Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 211.) NJOY shall file its Second Amended 28 Complaint on the docket no later than October 10, 2025. The Court also GRANTS 1 || NJOY’s Motion for Leave to Allow the Non-Electronic Filing of Exhibit 9 to Motion for 2 || Preliminary Injunction as to Defendant Empire Imports, LLC via USB Drive. (ECF No. 3 228.) NJOY shall lodge Exhibit 9 with the Clerk of Court no later than October 10, 2025. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 ~ 6 || DATED: September 26, 2025 ( Lilia. (Duhark 7 H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 48