Strezsak v. Ardelyx Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: April 6, 2023
• Docket: 4:21-cv-05868
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 Case No. 21-cv-05868-HSG

8 In re Ardelyx, Inc. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED 9 COMPLAINT 10 Re: Dkt. No. 85 11

12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. Dkt. 14 No. 85. Plaintiff seeks to add allegations based on materials released by the Food and Drug 15 Administration related to a meeting with Defendants. See id. at 4. 16 Under Federal Rule of Procedure 15(a)(2), “leave to amend shall be freely granted ‘when 17 justice so requires.’” Townsend v. Univ. of Alaska, 543 F.3d 478, 485 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting 18 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2)). “This policy is to be applied with extreme liberality.” Eminence 19 Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks 20 omitted). The five factors relevant to determining whether leave to amend should be granted are 21 (1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of amendment, and 22 (5) previous amendments. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); see also Wash. State 23 Republican Party v. Wash. State Grange, 676 F.3d 784, 797 (9th Cir. 2012) (same factors). The 24 Court weighs prejudice to the opposing party most heavily. Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052 25 (9th Cir. 2003). “Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman factors, 26 there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Id. (emphasis in 27 original). 1 Having considered the parties’ arguments, the Court finds that Defendants have failed to 2 || demonstrate prejudice or make a strong showing as to any of the other Foman factors, such that 3 the presumption in favor of granting leave to amend controls. Defendant’s detailed arguments 4 || regarding futility are better suited to resolution on a motion to dismiss and do not persuade the 5 Court that leave should be denied.! 6 The Court thus GRANTS Plaintiff's motion. Dkt. No. 85. The second amended 7 complaint must be filed by April 14, 2023. The parties are DIRECTED to meet and confer and 8 submit by April 14 a stipulation and proposed order setting a briefing schedule and proposed 9 || hearing date for any renewed motion to dismiss. The Court TERMINATES AS MOOT the 10 || motion to dismiss at Dkt. No. 83. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. a 12 Dated: 4/6/2023

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 14 United States District Judge 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 07 ' Defendants ask the Court to take judicial notice of numerous exhibits in support of its opposition to Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. See Dkt. No. 89 at □ n.2. The 28 Court does not find these documents necessary to analyze whether leave should be granted and accordingly denies the request.