Brighton Collectibles, LLC v. Believe Production, Inc.

Filing 38

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 33 by Judge Christina A. Snyder. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a first amended complaint is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. (lom)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:15-cv-00579-CAS(ASx)

Title

BRIGHTON COLLECTIBLES, LLC v. BELIEVE PRODUCTIONS,
INC.

Present: The Honorable

Date

‘O’

August 30, 2016

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

Catherine Jeang
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

I.

(IN CHAMBERS) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
AMEND (Dkt. 33, filed July 27, 2016)

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 26, 2015, plaintiff Brighton Collectibles, LLC (“Brighton”) filed a
complaint against defendant Believe Productions, Inc. (“Believe”). Plaintiff alleges one
claim, Copyright Infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. The gravamen of
plaintiff’s claim is that defendant violated its copyright in a piece of jewelry.
On July 27, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint.
Dkt. 33. On August 22, 2016, defendant filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion for
leave. Dkt. 35. On August 26, 2016, plaintiff filed a reply to defendant’s opposition.
Dkt. 36. The gravamen of plaintiff’s proposed amendment is that defendant unlawfully
used photographs of plaintiff’s jewelry in its promotional materials.
The deadline for amending pleadings was October 2, 2015. Dkt. 15. On May 18,
2016, this Court granted the parties’ stipulated continuance of case deadlines, setting the
discovery deadline for November 1, 2016, the pre-trial conference for February 6, 2016,
and the trial for March 7, 2017. Dkt. 31. Having considered the parties’ arguments, the
Court finds and concludes as follows.1

1

The Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing date of September 12, 2016 is
vacated, and the matter is hereby taken under submission.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:15-cv-00579-CAS(ASx)

Title

BRIGHTON COLLECTIBLES, LLC v. BELIEVE PRODUCTIONS,
INC.

II.

Date

‘O’

August 30, 2016

LEGAL STANDARD

The Court set October 2, 2015, as the deadline for amending pleadings. Dkt. 15.
Therefore, plaintiff must demonstrate “good cause” for amending a scheduling order
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 (“Rule 16"). Johnson v. Mammoth
Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).
Rule 16(b)(4) provides that a scheduling order shall be modified “only for good
cause.” “Unlike Rule 15(a)’s liberal amendment policy . . . Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’
standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Id.
Accordingly, while the court may consider the “existence or degree of prejudice” to the
opposing party, the focus of the court’s inquiry is upon the moving party’s explanation
for failure to timely move for leave to amend. Id. “The district court is given broad
discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation.” Id. at 607 (quoting Miller v.
Safeco Title Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 364, 369 (9th Cir. 1985)).
III.

DISCUSSION

In this case, plaintiff has shown good cause for modifying the scheduling order.
Plaintiff’s proposed amendment would add false designation of origin and common law
unfair competition claims. Defendant argues that, on an undetermined date in September
2015 (prior to the October 2, 2015 amendment deadline), defendant provided the
marketing materials to plaintiff that are now the basis for plaintiff’s proposed
amendment. Plaintiff avers that it did not know the facts supporting its additional claims
until after the amendment deadline, Wesley Decl. ¶3-4, and did not “obtain convincing
proof” until a deposition on February 29, 2016, when it confronted defendant’s president
regarding its marketing efforts, Plaintiff Reply at 4. Both parties acknowledge that the
facts underlying the additional proposed claims were the subject of a deposition on
February 29, 2016.
Plaintiff claims it did not seek to amend the complaint earlier because both parties
were working to settle the case. Wesley Decl. ¶6. Following an unsuccessful mediation
on July 20, 2016, plaintiff’s counsel informed defendant of its intent to amend the
complaint to include additional claims. Wesley Decl. ¶7. Accordingly, there appears to
be no prejudice to defendant, who has had constructive notice of the same underlying
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

‘O’

Case No.

2:15-cv-00579-CAS(ASx)

August 30, 2016

Title

BRIGHTON COLLECTIBLES, LLC v. BELIEVE PRODUCTIONS,
INC.

facts as plaintiff. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds good cause for granting
plaintiff leave to amend its complaint.
V.

CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint is GRANTED.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer

:

00

CMJ

2

Plaintiff shall promptly file an amended complaint consistent with its proposed
First Amended Complaint, Dkt. 33, Ex. 1, offered in redline form to clearly demonstrate
proposed changes.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 3