SEOUL SEMICONDUCTOR CO., LTD. v. CURTIS INTERNATIONAL LTD.

Filing 95

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO AMENDITS ANSWER by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: Plaintiff Seoul Semiconductor TOSHOW CAUSE, in writing, by November 24, 2015, why this Court should not grantCurtiss request for leave to amend its Answer to include a new affirmative defense. No hearing will be held. All other dates and deadlines in this action REMAIN on calendar. (lc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9
10
11

SEOUL SEMICONDUCTOR CO., LTD.,
Plaintiff,

12

v.

13
14

Case No. 2:14-cv-09466-ODW(VBKx)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:

CURTIS INTERNATIONAL, LTD.,
Defendant.

15

OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT’S
REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
ITS ANSWER

16
17
18

Defendant Curtis International, Ltd. (“Curtis”) filed a motion for leave to

19

amend its answer on November 9, 2015.1 (ECF No. 94.) Where the deadline for

20

amending a pleading has passed, the party seeking leave to amend must show “good

21

cause” as to why such leave should be granted. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations,

22

975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). As per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2),

23

leave to amend should be granted where “justice so requires.”

24

Based on Curtis’s request papers, it is clear that Plaintiff Seoul Semiconductor

25

objects to the filing of an amended answer to include a new affirmative defense. (ECF

26
27
28

1

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), a party may amend a pleading only with the support of the opposing
party or by leave of the Court. Since it is clear from Curtis’s papers that Plaintiff Seoul Semiconductor does not lend its
support, Curtis is asking for leave to amend its Answer. Such a request is merely that—a request—and therefore it was
improper for Curtis to file this request as a Motion.

1

No. 94) While the consent of the opposing party is not required for the Court to grant

2

leave to file an amended pleading, in light of Plaintiff’s objections the Court will hear

3

any objections to Curtis’s request before rendering its decision.

4

Therefore, the Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiff Seoul Semiconductor TO

5

SHOW CAUSE, in writing, by November 24, 2015, why this Court should not grant

6

Curtis’s request for leave to amend its Answer to include a new affirmative defense.

7

No hearing will be held. All other dates and deadlines in this action REMAIN on

8

calendar.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

November 10, 2015

12
13
14

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2