Anticancer, Inc. v. Fujifilm Medical Systems U.S.A., Inc. et al

Filing 36

ORDER: Defendants' Motion to Strike (Doc. 27 ) is granted. The Clerk of the Court shall strike Document Number 22 from the docket. GE Healthcare, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 20 ) is granted. Plaintiff's claims against GE Healthcare, Inc. are dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff may file a motion for leave to amend within thirty days of the date of this order. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 1/19/2010. (mdc) (jrl).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 HAYES, Judge: The matters before the Court are the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 20) filed by Defendant GE Healthcare, Inc. ("GE") and the Motion to Strike Amended Complaint (Doc. # 27) filed by Defendants Fujifilm Corporation, Fujifilm Medical Systems U.S.A., Inc. (collectively "Fujifilm"), and GE. ANTICANCER, Inc., Plaintiff, vs. FUJIFILM MEDICAL SYSTEMS U.S.A., Inc., et al., Defendants. CASE NO. 09cv1311 WQH (JMA) ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BACKGROUND On June 17, 2009, Plaintiff AntiCancer, Inc. ("AntiCancer") initiated this action by filing its complaint. (Doc. # 1). On August 20, 2009, AntiCancer filed its First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). (Doc. # 6). On September 9, 2009, Fujifilm filed its answer to the FAC and a counterclaim. (Doc. # 9). On October 9, 2009, GE filed its Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. # 20). On November 16, 2009, AntiCancer filed its Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") and an opposition to the Motion to Dismiss which contends that the SAC renders the motion moot.
-109cv1311 WQH (JMA)

1 (Doc. # 22). On December 2, 2009, Fujifilm and GE filed their Motion to Strike Amended 2 Complaint. (Doc. # 27). 3 4 5 I. 6 Motion to Strike Fujifilm and GE contend that AntiCancer is not entitled to file the SAC as of right ANALYSIS

7 because it already exhausted its opportunity to amend once as a matter of course pursuant to 8 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). (Doc. # 27-1 at 2). Defendants contend that 9 AntiCancer was required to obtain leave of the Court or consent of the Defendants to file the 10 SAC. Id. at 3. Defendants contend that the Court should strike the SAC pursuant to Federal 11 Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). Id. at 4. 12 AntiCancer contends that motions to strike are viewed with disfavor and that

13 defendants are often required to show prejudice before granting the motion. (Doc. # 30 at 3). 14 AntiCancer contends a plaintiff is entitled to file one amended complaint against any defendant 15 who has not yet answered. Id. at 4. AntiCancer contends several courts have held that a 16 plaintiff in cases with multiple defendants may file an amended complaint against particular 17 defendants who have not yet filed an answer when other defendants have already filed 18 responsive pleadings. Id. AntiCancer contends Defendants have not even claimed that they 19 will be prejudiced if Plaintiff is allowed to file a SAC as of right, which shows this is simply 20 a delay tactic. Id. at 7. In the alternative, AntiCancer requests an order granting leave to 21 amend pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). 22 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), "[a] party may amend its pleadings

23 once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. 24 P. 15(a) (2009) (amended December 1, 2009). In cases with multiple defendants, where some 25 defendants have answered but some have not, "it is generally held that a `responsive pleading' 26 has not been served for purposes of Rule 15(a) and plaintiff may amend the complaint as of 27 course with regard to those defendants that have not answered." Charles Alan Wright, Arthur 28 R. Miller, and Mary Kay Kane, 6 Federal Practice and Procedure § 1481 (2d 1990). However,
-209cv1311 WQH (JMA)

1 once a party has amended a pleading as a matter of course, any subsequent amendments 2 require leave of the court. Hinton v. Nmi Pac. Enters., 5 F.3d 391, 395 (9th Cir. 1993). "The 3 filing of a prior amendment extinguishes the right to amend as a matter of right." Johnson v. 4 Washington Mut., 09cv929, 2009 WL 2997661 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2009). 5 AntiCancer was not entitled to file the SAC as a matter of right because it had already

6 filed an amended complaint as of right. The language of Rule 15 states parties may amend 7 "once as a matter of course," not once per defendant as a matter of course. Therefore, 8 AntiCancer was required to obtain leave of the Court or consent from the Defendants in order 9 to file the SAC. AntiCancer failed to do so and now seeks leave to amend for the first time in 10 its opposition to the Motion to Strike. The Court therefore grants the Motion to Strike and 11 denies without prejudice the request for leave to amend. Plaintiff may file a motion for leave 12 to amend the FAC which complies with the Local Rules within thirty days of the date of this 13 order. 14 15 II. 16 Motion to Dismiss GE contends AntiCancer's FAC fails to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

17 Procedure 12(b)(6). (Doc. # 20). AntiCancer contends GE's Motion to Dismiss is moot 18 because the SAC supplanted the FAC, and the FAC is no longer the operative pleading in this 19 case. (Doc. # 23). However, because AntiCancer did not have the right to amend as a matter 20 of course and the filing has been struck, the FAC remains the operative pleading. AntiCancer 21 did not respond to GE's arguments as to why the case should be dismissed. Pursuant to Local 22 Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1.f.3.a, an opposition "must contain a brief and complete statement 23 of all reasons in opposition to the position taken by the movant . . . ." AntiCancer's failure to 24 respond to GE's arguments that the FAC fails to state a claim constitutes consent to grant the 25 motion. See Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1.f.3.c. The Motion to Dismiss the Complaint 26 as to GE is granted. 27 28
-309cv1311 WQH (JMA)

1 2

CONCLUSION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Strike (Doc. # 27) is

3 GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court shall strike Document Number 22 from the docket. IT 4 IS FURTHER ORDERED that GE's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 20) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's 5 claims against GE are dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff may file a motion for leave to 6 amend within thirty days of the date of this order. 7 8 DATED: January 19, 2010 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
-409cv1311 WQH (JMA)

WILLIAM Q. HAYES United States District Judge