Jardin v. Datallegro, Inc. et al

Filing 39

ORDER granting Plaintiff's 35 Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 5/17/2011. (jah)(jrd)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CARY A. JARDIN,

12

CASE NO: 10-CV-2552-IEG (WVG)
Plaintiff,

13

vs.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

14

DATALLEGRO, INC. and STUART
FROST,

[Doc. No. 35]

15
16

Defendants.

17
18

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint

19

(“FAC”). Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to add a claim for slander of title. Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s

20

motion. The motion is suitable for disposition without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule

21

7.1(d)(1). For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend.

22
23

BACKGROUND
On December 13, 2011, Plaintiff filed his original complaint, alleging two claims for correction

24

of inventorship under federal law and four claims arising under California law, including a claim for

25

slander of title. In the original complaint, the state law claims were based on allegations that

26

Defendants misappropriated confidential information belonging to Plaintiff. [See Doc. No. 1, ¶¶ 31,

27

34, 42, 72, 103-105, 170-98.] On April 12, 2011, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss

28
1

1

Plaintiff’s state law claims, holding those claims were based on allegations of trade secret

2

misappropriation and were thus preempted by the California Trade Secret Act.1 [Doc. No. 30, at 5.]

3

However, the Order granted Plaintiff leave to amend his state law claims “if he can identify a

4

cognizable property interest that lies outside of trade secret law.” [Id.]

5

On April 28, 2011, Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo issued a Scheduling Order Regulating

6

Discovery and Other Pretrial Proceedings in this matter. The Scheduling Order provides that “[a]ny

7

motion to join other parties, to amend pleadings, or to file additional pleadings shall be filed on or

8

before May 28, 2011.” [Doc. No. 34, at 1 (emphasis in original).] On May 13, 2011, Plaintiff filed the

9

instant motion for leave to amend his complaint by adding a claim for slander of title.
DISCUSSION

10
11

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 allows a party to amend its pleading with leave of court

12

after the period for amendment as a matter of course has expired. Rule 15 provides that “[t]he court

13

should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The Ninth Circuit has

14
15
16
17
18
19

construed this broadly, requiring leave to amend be granted with “extreme liberality.” Morongo Band
of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990). The Court considers five factors in
assessing a motion for leave to amend: (1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing
party, (4) futility of the amendment, and (5) whether the plaintiff has previously amended the
complaint. Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004). Of these factors, prejudice to
the opposing party carries the greatest weight. Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048,
1052 (9th Cir. 2003).

20
The Court finds these five factors weigh in favor of granting Plaintiff leave to amend. The fifth
21
factor clearly favors Plaintiff, as this is his first attempt to amend his complaint. Regarding the first
22
three factors, Defendants have not alleged bad faith, and they have not made a sufficient showing of
23
24

undue delay or prejudice. This case is in the early stages of litigation. Plaintiff sought leave to amend
less than one month after the Court issued its Order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s

25
26
27
1

28

The Court’s April 12, 2011, Order also denied Defendants’ motion under Rule 12(e) for a
more definite statement of Plaintiff’s claims under federal law.
2

1

state law claims, and more than three weeks before the deadline set out in the Scheduling Order for

2

seeking leave to amend the pleadings.2

3

Defendants argue Plaintiff’s proposed amendment would be futile because the proposed slander

4

of title claim is identical to the cause of action the Court previously dismissed as preempted under the

5

California Trade Secrets Act. [See Defs.’ Opp’n, at 5-6.] Plaintiff argues that, unlike the previous

6

attempt to state a claim for slander of title, his proposed claim stems from Defendants’ allegedly

7

improper claim of inventorship rather than the alleged misappropriation of confidential information.

8

[See Pl.’s Reply, at 4-6.] Thus, Plaintiff’s proposed slander of title claim appears to rest on a different

9

legal theory than did his original claim, and it is not immediately clear that Plaintiff’s proposed

10

amendments would be futile. Defendants’ challenges to the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s proposed claim

11

are more appropriately addressed on a subsequent motion to dismiss.

12

Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to amend.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

DATED: 5/17/11

_______________________________
IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge
United States District Court

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

2

Defendants correctly note that they were required to answer or otherwise respond to
Plaintiff’s remaining claims within fourteen days from the Court’s April 12, 2011, Order. See [Defs.’
Opp’n, Doc. No. 36, at 4]; Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4). However, Defendants provide no authority
supporting their contention that Rule 15(a)(2) required Plaintiff to seek leave to amend within the same
period of time, and nothing in the text of Rule 15 supports Defendants’ argument. See [Defs.’ Opp’n,
at 4]; Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (discussing requirements for a party seeking leave to amend without
imposing a time limit).
3