Delphix Corp. v. Actifio, Inc.

Filing 29

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND AND DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT. By Judge Richard Seeborg (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/15/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

8

12
13
14

DELPHIX CORP.,
Plaintiff,
v.

15

ACTIFO, INC.,

16

Case No. C 13-4613 RS
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO AMEND AND DENYING
MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT

Defendant.
____________________________________/

17
18
19

Plaintiff Delphix Corp. seeks leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, incorporating

20

“additional factual averments to support its existing willful patent infringement and indirect

21

infringement claims.” Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the motion is suitable for disposition

22

without oral argument and the hearing set for February 6, 2014 is hereby vacated. Defendant

23

Actifo, Inc. does not oppose the motion per se, or offer any reason why leave to amend should not

24

be granted under the liberal standard of Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See U.S. v.

25

Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981) (“Rule 15’s policy of favoring amendments to pleadings

26

should be applied with ‘extreme liberality.’”) (quoting Rosenberg Brothers & Co. v. Arnold, 283

27

F.2d 406).

28

1

Actifo refused to stipulate to the amendment, however, unless Delphix agreed that if a

2

motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint were successful, the ruling would be with

3

prejudice. Actifo’s response to the motion for leave to amend consists primarily of arguments that

4

leave to file a third amended complaint should not be granted if the claims of the Second Amended

5

Complaint are dismissed. Actifo may make those arguments in any motion it brings to dismiss the

6

Second Amended Complaint. The motion for leave to amend is granted.

7

Without prejudice to Actifo’s right to argue that the Second Amended Complaint does not

8

cure the alleged deficiencies set out in the pending motion to dismiss, that motion is denied as moot,

9

as is the parties’ stipulated request for an extension of the briefing schedule.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
13

Dated: 1/15/14

14
15
16

RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

2