Guardian Alliance Technologies, Inc. v. Miller Mendel, Inc. and Tyler Miller

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- GUARDIAN ALLIANCE TECHNOLOGIES, No. 2:22-cv-01390 WBS AC INC., Plaintiff, 14 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 15 JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND MILLER MENDEL, INC. and TYLER DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO MODIFY MILLER, THE SCHEDULING ORDER 17 Defendants.

19 ----oo0oo---- 20 Defendants Miller Mendel, Inc. and Tyler Miller (collectively, “MMI”) move to modify the scheduling order to permit them to amend their answer. As the most recent scheduling order (Docket No. 64) did not supply a deadline for amending the pleadings, Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 applies. See Dhillon v. Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd., No. 22-55125, 2023 WL 5696529 (9th Cir. Sept.

26 5, 2023); VIA Techs., Inc. v. ASUS Computer Int’l, No. 14-cv- 03585-BLF, 2017 WL 491172, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2017) (“Where, as here, the Court’s scheduling orders do not set a deadline for amendments to the pleadings, a motion for leave to amend is evaluated under Rule 15.”); Knudsen v. City & Cnt. Of San Francisco, No. 12-cv-01944-JST, 2013 WL 6235507, at *1 n.1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2013) (“Because the Court did not set a deadline for amending the pleadings in the scheduling order it issued . . . motions for leave to amend the pleadings are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.”).

8 As this court has often noted, “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 empowers parties to agree to amendments and alternatively directs the court to freely grant leave to amend ‘when justice so requires.’” Singh v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC, No. CV 2:18-445 WBS AC, 2018 WL 2155936 (E.D. Cal. May 10, 2018) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2)). “Under Rule 15(a), there exists a presumption in favor of granting leave to amend.” Owens v. Walgreen Co., No. CIV. 2:12-419 WBS, 2012 WL 2359996, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 20, 2012) J.) (citing Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F. 3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003)).

18 Courts will therefore generally grant leave to amend unless amendment: (1) would cause prejudice to the opposing party, (2) is sought in bad faith, (3) creates undue delay, or (4) is futile. Id. GAT contends that allowing amendment would cause them prejudice, and that MMI’s amendments are futile. The court is not persuaded by either argument.

24 “To overcome Rule 15(a)’s liberal policy favoring leave, the prejudice to the opposing party must be ‘substantial.’” Addaday, Inc. v. Artist International Co., No. 221CV05525ABPLAX, 2022 WL 16859889, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2022) (internal citation omitted). “No prejudice exists when an amendment causes no delay in proceedings and no additional discovery is required.” Restoration Industry Ass’n Inc. v. TheramaPure Inc., No. CV 13-8523 JVS, 2014 WL 12603210 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2014) (citing Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F. 3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001)). Here, MMI’s proposed amendments would cause neither undue delay nor additional discovery, which is in its infancy. At this early stage, allowing amendment would thus be unlikely to prejudice GAT.

9 As to futility, GAT argues that “MMI’s proposed amendments incorporate legal conclusions, including that the ordered combination of claim elements reflects an inventive concept.” (Docket No. 71 at 13.) MMI argues in response -- citing Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 882 14 F. 3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2018) -- that its proposed amendments “contain[] allegations that . . . directly affect its patent eligibility analysis” because they “plead specific factual allegations that the asserted patent claims involve elements not well-understood, routine, and conventional . . . to a skilled artisan in the industry.” (Id.) 20 Denial on based on futility “is rare and courts generally defer consideration of challenges to the merits of a proposed amended pleading until after leave to amend is granted and the amended pleading is filed.” Duhn Oil Tool, Inc. v. Cooper Cameron Corp., No. CV-F-05-1311 OWW GSA, 2010 WL 596312, at *14 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2010). “The better preferred procedure is to allow amendment and permit the defendant to challenge the pleadings with a motion to dismiss.” Owens v. Walgreen Co., No. CIV. 2:12-419 WBS, 2012 WL 2359996 (E.D. Cal. June 20, 2012).

2 It would be premature at this stage of the proceeding for the court conclude that MMI’s amendments would be futile. As noted during oral argument, allowing factual development through amendment is particularly pertinent in patent cases, which can involve highly specialized and technical factual questions. The proposed paragraphs allege that the patent claims “recite, as a whole, specific technological methods for managing pre-employment background investigations,” and go on to list several functions attributable to the claim language which allegedly “reflect[] an inventive concept.” (Docket No. 68 at 21.) The Aatrix court observed that determining “[w]hether the claim elements or the claimed combination are well-understood, routine, and conventional is a question of fact . . . [that] cannot be answered adversely to the patentee” based on the undeveloped record before it. 882 F. 3d at 1128.

17 The same is true here; the scant record before the court does not unequivocally suggest that MMI’s allegations are futile, because those allegations, “if accepted as true,” could plausibly “establish that the claimed combination contains inventive components and improves the workings of the computer.”

22 Id. at 1125.

23 Because MMI’s motion for leave to amend their answer will be granted, plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is moot as MMI’s new amended pleading will supersede the old.

26 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that MMI’s motion to modify the scheduling order and for leave to amend their answer (Docket No. 68) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED; and IT IS FURTHER eee OIE I IERIE IDE IIE ESI EIEN EIEIO NO OE OEE OED OE ORDERED that GAT’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Docket No. 65) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED, without prejudice, as moot. Defendants have twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order to file their amended answer.

6 | Dated: November 25, 2025 eke A, Dhan bee WILLIAM B. SHUBB 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE