Regents of the University of Colorado, The v. Allergan, Inc. et al

Filing 70

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang on 5/7/15. The Motion for Leave to Amend 58 is DENIED as premature, with leave to renew, if appropriate, following disposition of Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (bsimm, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 1:14-CV-01562-MSK-NYW
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALLERGAN, INC.
and ALLERGAN BOTOX LIMITED,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT
______________________________________________________________________________
Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang
This civil action comes before the court on Plaintiff The Regents of the University of
Colorado’s (“Plaintiff” or the “University”) Motion (In the Alternative) for Leave to Amend Its
Complaint (the “Motion for Leave to Amend”). [#58, filed February 17, 2015]. The matter was
referred to this Magistrate Judge pursuant to the Order Referring Case dated March, 17, 2014
[#25] and the memorandum dated February 19, 2015 [#59].
The University initiated this action on June 3, 2014 by filing a Complaint asserting four
counts for the breach of an Intellectual Property License Agreement by which it granted
Defendants Allergan, Inc. and Allergan Botox Limited (collectively, “Defendants”) licenses to
certain patents for the treatment of various urology-related disorders with botulinum toxin. [#6].
Plaintiff amended its Complaint on July 24, 2014 to add a fifth count for breach of the License
Agreement. [#32].

On January 22, 2015, Defendants filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to
Count I of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, “Breach of the License Agreement: Failure to Use a
Mutually Agreed-Upon Survey Provider.” [#55]. 1 In the instant Motion, The University asks
for leave to amend its Complaint “to (1) clarify its breach of contract claim, and (2) assert a
claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,” should the court grant
Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. [See #58].
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to Amend [#58] is DENIED as premature,
with leave to renew, if appropriate, following disposition of Defendants’ Motion for Judgment
on the Pleadings. At that time, the existing Response and Reply may also be renewed, so that the
Parties do not need to spend time and resource re-arguing already briefed issues.

DATED: May 7, 2015

BY THE COURT:
s/Nina Y. Wang
United States Magistrate Judge

1

The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings was not referred to the undersigned Magistrate
Judge.
2