GS Holistic, LLC v. J's Smoke Shop

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1] No. 1:23-cv-00286-KJM-CSK GS Holistic, LLC, 12 ORDER Plaintiff, v. Shaibi Abdulgawi d/b/a J’s Smoke Shop and Shaibi Abdulgawi, 16 Defendants.

18 Plaintiff GS Holistic, LLC moves for leave to file a second amended complaint in this | trademark action. No opposition was filed, and no defendant has appeared in this action. For the | reasons set forth below, the court grants the motion.

21 Plaintiff originally filed this action in February 2023 against J’s Smoke Shop d/b/a J’s | Smoke Shop and John Doe. See generally Compl., ECF No. 1. Plaintiff subsequently filed a | motion to amend the complaint to substitute the John Doe defendant. First Am. Mot., ECF No. | 11. The motion was granted, see Prior Order (July 14, 2024), ECF No. 14, and plaintiff filed a | first amended complaint, see generally First Am. Compl., ECF No. 15. Later, plaintiff filed a | motion for default judgment against all defendants. See Default J. Mot., ECF No. 30. The | motion was denied because plaintiff's allegations were insufficient for the purposes of default | judgment. See Prior Order (Mar. 8, 2024) at 6,1 ECF No. 34. Plaintiff then filed the instant | motion to amend the complaint. See Second Am. Mot., ECF No. 36. The court submitted the | motion without a hearing as provided under Local Rule 230(g). Min. Order (July 3, 2024), ECF | No. 39.

5 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).

9 | 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. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).

12 Here, plaintiff argues the Rule 15 standard is met and the court agrees. See Second Am. | Mot. at 2. There is no indication the amendment would result in prejudice, as defendants have yet | to appear, and there are no facts to indicate the amendment is sought in bad faith. Further, this is | plaintiffs first attempt to cure deficiencies identified by the court. Finally, “[c]ourts within this | District and Circuit often defer assessments of a proposed amendment’s legal substance until after | those amendments are filed and a defendant formally moves to dismiss.” Est. of Thomas v. Cnty. | of Sacramento, No. 20-00903, 2021 WL 5280991, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2021) (collecting | cases). Accordingly, the court grants the motion to amend. An amended complaint shall be filed | within seven (7) days of the filing date of this order.

21 This order resolves ECF No. 36.

22 IT IS SO ORDERED.

23 DATED: August 22, 2024. / □ / 35 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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