GS Holistic, LLC v. Plaza Linda

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 GS Holistic, LLC, No. 2:22-cv-02088-KJM-CSK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 Plaza Linda d/b/a Sticky Smoke Shop and 15 Vape, and Jose A Sepulveda, 16 Defendants.

18 Plaintiff originally filed this trademark action against Plaza Linda d/b/a Sticky Smoke | Shop and Vape and Jose A Sepulveda. See generally Compl., ECF No. 1. When defendants did | not appear, plaintiff requested entries of default, see First Default Req., ECF No. 13, Second | Default Req., ECF No. 15, and the clerk entered defaults, see First Default, ECF No. 14; Second | Default, ECF No. 16. In denying plaintiff's motion for default judgment, the magistrate judge | vacated the entries of default and ordered plaintiff to file an amended complaint. See Prior Order | (Dec. 22, 2023), ECF No. 26; First Am. Compl., ECF No. 28. Plaintiff subsequently “performed | further investigation” and determined that the “correct” defendants are Samir Mohammed Ali | Shareef, individually and d/b/a Sticky Smoke Shop and Vape. See Mot. at 2,1 ECF No. 44.

' When citing page numbers on filings, the court uses the pagination automatically generated by the CM/ECF system.

1 | Plaintiff moves to amend the complaint by substituting defendants. See generally id. The | motion is unopposed. The court submitted the motion without oral argument as provided under | Local Rule 230(g). Min. Order (July 29, 2024), ECF No. 46.

4 Rule 15 permits a party to amend its complaint with the court’s permission. See Fed. R. | Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Jd. The Ninth | Circuit has long “stressed Rule 15’s policy of favoring amendments” and has “applied this policy | with liberality.” Ascon Props., Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989).

8 | Requests to amend are ordinarily denied only when they will result in undue delay or prejudice, | when they are sought in bad faith, when a plaintiff has repeatedly failed to cure deficiencies or | when amendment would be futile. See Foman vy. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Here, while | the original complaint was filed over a year and a half ago, no facts indicate plaintiff seeks this | amendment in bad faith, this motion seeks to amend the complaint for only the second time, and | there is no indication an amendment would be futile. Accordingly, given Rule 15’s liberal policy, | the court grants the motion to amend. An amended complaint shall be filed within seven (7) | days of the filed date of this order.

16 This order resolves ECF No. 44.

17 IT IS SO ORDERED.

18 DATED: August 22, 2024. | / 50 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE