Urban Sophistication Ltd v. van Elst ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | Urban Sophistication Ltd., No. 2:22-cv-00093-KJM-JDP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 Ajmall Gulham, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 In this trademark infringement case, plaintiff Urban Sophistication Ltd. moves to file a 18 | second amended complaint to substitute defendant “Does” with Jackson Jaillet, Samuel Peterson, 19 | Irid Nils and Luke Donnelly, and to add Zhi Wei Chen as a new defendant. Mot. at 2, ECF 20 | No. 31. The motion is unopposed. Since filing the most recent complaint, plaintiff discovered 21 | the identities of defendant Does and the new defendant by filing Uniform Domain-Name Dispute 22 | Resolution Policy (UDRP) complaints with the National Arbitration Forum. Mot. Mem. at □□□□ 23 | 7, ECF No. 31-1. For the reasons below, the court grants the motion. 24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides the court should “freely give leave [to 25 | amend] when justice so requires” and the Ninth Circuit has “stressed Rule 15’s policy of favoring 26 | amendments.” Ascon Properties, Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989). 27 | However, “the liberality in granting leave to amend is subject to several limitations.” Jd. “Courts 28 | may decline to grant leave to amend only if there is strong evidence of “undue delay, bad faith or 1 dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments 2 previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the 3 amendment, [or] futility of amendment, etc.’” Sonoma Cty. Ass’n of Retired Emps. v. Sonoma 4 Cty., 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). 5 Here, the court finds leave to amend is warranted. The court has not yet held a pretrial 6 conference and there is no trial date pending. At this early stage of this case, the court finds no 7 evidence of undue delay or prejudice to the defendants. Moreover, the plaintiff did not know the 8 identifies of the defendants when it filed the first amended complaint and subsequently took steps 9 promptly to discover their identities. See Mot. Mem. at 7. The court also finds no indication of 10 bad faith or dilatory motive. Finally, plaintiff has not repeatedly failed to cure deficiencies nor is 11 there any indication amendment would be futile. 12 For the reasons stated above, the court grants the plaintiff’s motion. The second amended 13 complaint must be filed within fourteen days of this order. 14 This order resolves ECF No. 31. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 DATED: October 11, 2022.