Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01847/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01847-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:0101 Copyright Infringement (definitions)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN SHOOTING CENTER,

INC.,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 13-cv-1847-BTM-JMA

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

FILE AMENDED

COUNTERCLAIMS

v.

SECFOR INTERNATIONAL LLC, 

et. al.,

Defendants.

Defendants have filed a Motion for Leave to File Second Amended

Counterclaims. (Doc. 29.) For the reasons set forth below, the motion is hereby

GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed a twelve-count complaint on August 8, 2013. (Doc. 1.) 

Defendants filed Answers on September 16, 2013. (Docs. 5-7.) Some eight months

later, Defendants moved to substitute their current attorney in place of their prior

counsel. The Court granted the substitution on May 30, 2014. (Doc. 21.) On July

30, 2014, the Magistrate Judge set an August 20, 2014 deadline for filing any

motion to join parties, amend the pleadings, or to file additional pleadings. (Doc.

27.) On August 20, 2014, Defendants timely filed the pending motion, seeking

leave to add two new parties and sixteen counterclaims. (Doc. 29.) 

1 13cv1847-BTM-JMA)

Case 3:13-cv-01847-BTM-JMA Document 45 Filed 10/10/14 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

II. DISCUSSION

Leave to amend a complaint should be freely given when justice so requires. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “Liberality in granting a plaintiff leave to amend is subject

to the qualification that the amendment not cause undue prejudice to the defendant,

is not sought in bad faith, and is not futile.” Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 758

(9th Cir. 1999). 

Plaintiff argues that it will suffer prejudice if the motion is granted, since the

discovery cutoff date is November 12, 2014. (Doc. 25.) Plaintiff points out that its

expert report is due on October 14, 2014 and that the counterclaims may prompt

new expert designations or further expert analysis. It is true that the amendments

may result in prolonged discovery. But it appears that no depositions have yet been

taken in the case, so prejudice from delay is likely to be minimal. The Court

acknowledges that this is a copyright dispute and Plaintiff claims that Defendants

are continuing to use the course materials at issue. If Plaintiff prevails, any extra

harm resulting from the delay can be factored into the damages assessment. 

Defendants argue that the amendments are not sought in bad faith, as the

delay was caused by their prior counsel and it simply took their new attorney some

time to become familiar with the facts, identify interested parties, and formulate a

litigation plan. (See Decl. of Harry McGahey, ¶¶2-8.) Thus, the delay may be

attributed to Plaintiff’s retention of new counsel after filing his complaint. 

Defendants’ counsel also notes that he consented, “in the spirit of cooperation,” to a

23 day extension of time to respond to Defendants’ Special Interrogatorries. 

(McGahey Decl. ¶12.) The Court finds no bad faith with respect to the motion. 

Alleging various shortcomings in the new causes of action, Plaintiff argues

that they are futile, in part because they are really “nothing more than embellished

defenses.” (Opp’n at 7-8.) The Court disagrees. Plaintiff has not shown that the

tort claims nor the requests for declaratory and injunctive relief are so obviously

futile that the amendment should be disallowed. Defendants may consider revising

2 13cv1847-BTM-JMA)

Case 3:13-cv-01847-BTM-JMA Document 45 Filed 10/10/14 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the amended pleading in light of the alleged deficiencies before filing, and Plaintiffs

concerns may be addressed by a motion to dismiss. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court finds Defendants’ motion to file an

amended complaint is hereby GRANTED. Defendants must file their Second

Amended Answer and Counterclaims within ten days of the entry of this Order. In

the absence of a motion to dismiss, Plaintiff shall file a timely answer.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 9, 2013 __________________________________

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

3 13cv1847-BTM-JMA)

Case 3:13-cv-01847-BTM-JMA Document 45 Filed 10/10/14 Page 3 of 3