Intel Corporation v. Bevintel, LLC

Filing 34

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING 28 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/12/2013)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

INTEL CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,

5

8

ORDER GRANTING
MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO AMEND (Docket
No. 28)

v.

6
7

No. C 13-0232 CW

BEVINTEL, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________/

9
Plaintiff Intel Corporation moves for leave to amend its
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

complaint.

Defendant Bevintel, LLC opposes the motion.

After

11
considering the parties’ submissions, the Court finds this matter
12
suitable for decision without oral argument and now grants the
13
motion.
14
DISCUSSION
15
Plaintiff filed this trademark infringement action in January
16
2013.

On July 3, 2013, it sought Defendant’s consent to amend its

17
complaint.

Docket No. 28, Declaration of Donald A. Thompson, Ex.

18
B.

After Defendant failed to respond, Plaintiff filed the instant

19
motion on July 11, 2013, the deadline for amending the pleadings.
20
See Docket No. 20, Case Management Order.
21
Because Plaintiff does not seek to amend the scheduling order
22
here, its motion is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23
15.

That rule provides that leave to amend “shall be freely given

24
when justice so requires.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).

Because the

25
rule “favors a liberal policy towards amendment, the nonmoving
26
party bears the burden of demonstrating why leave to amend should
27
not be granted.”
28

Genentech, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 127 F.R.D. 529,

1

530–31 (N.D. Cal. 1989) (citing Senza–Gel Corp. v. Seiffhart, 803

2

F.2d 661, 666 (Fed. Cir. 1986)).

3

factors when deciding whether to grant a party leave to amend:

4

undue delay, bad faith, futility of amendment, prejudice to the

5

opposing party, and whether the party has previously amended the

6

pleadings.

7

1055 n.3 (9th Cir. 2009).

8
9

Courts generally consider five

Ahlmeyer v. Nev. Sys. of Higher Educ., 555 F.3d 1051,

Here, Plaintiff seeks to substitute twenty-one of Defendant’s
California franchisees for Doe Defendants.

Defendant asserts that

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

these franchisees’ names were publicly available -- both on its

11

own website and on the California Department of Business

12

Oversight’s (DBO) website -- when Plaintiff first filed this

13

lawsuit.

14

substitute these franchisees at this stage in the litigation is

15

“untimely, prejudicial and brought in bad faith.”

16

Opp. 1.

17

Thus, Defendant contends, Plaintiff’s proposal to

Docket No. 30,

This argument is unpersuasive.

Plaintiff asserted in its original complaint that it “has not

18

been able to identify Does 1-25 because it does not have full

19

access to information regarding all of Bevintel’s licensees and

20

franchisees.”

21

“Intel will amend its complaint as promptly as discovery permits

22

it to identify all applicable Does.”

23

statements notifying Defendant that Plaintiff planned to amend its

24

complaint in this way, Defendant cannot now claim prejudice or bad

25

faith.

26

Docket No. 1, Complaint ¶ 8.

Id.

It further stated,

In light of these

Nor can Defendant reasonably claim undue delay.

Plaintiff

27

sought Defendant’s consent to the proposed amendment more than a

28

week before the deadline to add new parties and more than two
2

1

months before the close of fact discovery.

2

over a week to respond to its request before filing a timely

3

motion for leave to amend.

4

scheduling order and moved to amend at its earliest practical

5

opportunity.1

6

It then gave Defendant

In short, Plaintiff complied with the

While Defendant contends that Plaintiff could have obtained

7

the names of its franchisees earlier in this litigation, Defendant

8

has not presented sufficient evidence to support this claim.

9

instance, Defendant has not offered any evidence to show that its

For

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

website featured an exhaustive list of its franchisees when

11

Plaintiff filed this suit.

12

provide a URL for its website, let alone any evidence that the

13

website accurately identified all of its franchisees in January

14

2013.

15

website contained accurate information about its franchisees at

16

that time.

17

franchisee disclosure statements available on the DBO’s website

18

were filed in July 2011 -- more than a full year before Plaintiff

19

filed this suit -- and that the DBO has yet to upload its more

20

recent disclosure statements.

21

John J. Dabney ¶ 6.

Its supporting declaration does not

Defendant has similarly failed to show that the DBO’s

In fact, Defendant concedes that the most recent

See Docket No. 30-1, Declaration of

22

Even if all of Defendant’s franchisee information was

23

publicly available when Plaintiff filed its original complaint,

24
25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff’s compliance with the scheduling order is one of
several factors that distinguish this case from Jackson v. Bank of
Hawaii, which Defendant cites for support. 902 F.2d 1385, 1388 (9th
Cir. 1990) (noting that the plaintiffs “informed the court of their
intention to file an amended complaint in March 1987, in May 1987, and
in February 1988, but they delayed offering their amended complaint
until May 1988”).

3

1

Defendant still failed to direct Plaintiff to this information

2

until last month when it filed its opposition to the instant

3

motion.

4

mention any websites or other publicly available resources where

5

Plaintiff might find an exhaustive list of Defendant’s California

6

franchisees.

7

Plaintiff’s proposed amendment is untimely or prejudicial and

8

Plaintiff must be granted leave to amend its complaint.

None of its responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests

As such, Defendant has failed to show that

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s motion for leave

11

to amend its complaint (Docket No. 28) is GRANTED.

12

days of this order, Plaintiff shall file the version of its First

13

Amended Complaint (1AC) that is currently attached as Exhibit A to

14

Donald Thompson’s declaration in support of Plaintiff’s reply.2

15

Docket No. 32.

16

order shall remain unchanged.

17

Within three

All deadlines set forth in the case management

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated: 8/12/2013

20

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
2

25
26
27
28

The Court notes that this version of Plaintiff’s proposed 1AC
identifies five franchisees who were not identified in an earlier
version of Plaintiff’s proposed 1AC. Because Plaintiff learned of these
identities after Defendant filed its opposition brief -- and only
because Defendant did not disclose them sooner -- Plaintiff is permitted
to use the later-filed version of its proposed 1AC. The addition of
these additional franchisees to Plaintiff’s proposed 1AC does not change
the logic or substance of this order.

4