1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 OAKLEY, INC., Case No.: 18cv2609-LAB (KSC) 40 Plaintt, | ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR V. LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED 11 ELITE TEK, et al. COUNTERCLAIMS [Dkt. 24] 12 Defendants. 13 14 Defendant and Counter-Claimant Elite Tek seeks leave to file amended 15 |! counterclaims against Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant Oakley, Inc. Rule 15(a)(2) 16 requires that “the Court. . . freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Among 17 || the reasons for denying leave are “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of 18 movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, 19 || undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and] 20 || futility of amendment ....” Schlacter-Jones v. Gen. Tel. of California,

, 443 21 || (9th Cir. 1991). None of those apply here, as this is Elite Tek’s first amendment and the 22 || proposed amendment occurs within the period set by the Court’s scheduling order. See 23 || Dkt. 23 9 1. Elite Tek’s motion is GRANTED, (Dkt. 24), and the hearing currently set for 24 || October 7, 2019 is VACATED. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: September 10, 2019 lau 4 (Ayn Hon. Larry Alan Burns 27 Chief United States District Judge 28