Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00107/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00107-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

- 1 - 11cv107

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTICANCER, INC.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11CV107 JLS (RBB)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED

COMPLAINT AND TO JOIN

CROWN BIOSCIENCE, INC. AS A

DEFENDANT

(ECF No. 15)

vs.

PFIZER INC.,

Defendant.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file amended complaint and to

join Crown Bioscience, Inc. as a defendant. (ECF No. 15) Also before the Court is Defendant’s

statement of non-opposition of Defendant Pfizer Inc. in response to motion for leave to file

amended complaint. (ECF No. 17) Having considered the parties’ arguments and the law, the

Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion and VACATES the hearing presently set for January 12, 2012.

Leave to amend the complaint should be freely given “when justice so requires.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 15(a)(2). But while Rule 15 should be interpreted liberally, leave to amend should not be

granted automatically. Jackson v. Bank of Haw., 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990). A trial

court may deny leave to amend if permitting amendment “would prejudice the opposing party,

produce and undue delay in the litigation, or result in futility for lack of merit.” Id.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 19 and 20 govern who may be joined as a party. Rule

20(a)(2) allows for the permissive joinder of defendants if “any right to relief is asserted against

them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction,

occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences” and “any question of law or fact common to

all defendants will arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). 

Case 3:11-cv-00107-JLS-RBB Document 18 Filed 11/08/11 Page 1 of 2
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

- 2 - 11cv107

Plaintiff’s proposed amendments to the complaint are purportedly based on new

information Plaintiff has learned since the filing of the original complaint. (Mot. for Leave to Am.

2, ECF No. 15) Moreover, the parties do not dispute that Defendant Pfizer will not be prejudiced

by permitting Plaintiff to file an amended complaint.

In addition, Plaintiff proposes to join Crown Bioscience, Inc (“Crown”) as a defendant

because Plaintiff’s fifth claim for relief for infringement is based on Pfizer and Crown’s allegedly

infringing joint activities, and thus Plaintiff’s claims against both arise out of the same transaction

or occurrence. (Id. at 6–7) Moreover, Plaintiff contends that its fifth claim for infringement “will

necessarily involve substantial common questions of fact between Pfizer and Crown.” (Id. at 7) 

Finally, Plaintiff maintains that joinder of Crown “will help avoid the need for multiple lawsuits,

promote the efficient discovery of common questions of fact, and preserve judicial resources.” (Id.

at 8)

Defendant Pfizer does not oppose Plaintiff’s motion to amend and to join Crown as a

Defendant. (Stmt. Non-Opp’n, ECF No. 17) Instead, Defendant’s statement of non-opposition

disputes the merits of the amended pleadings. (Id. at 2) As Defendant correctly recognizes,

however, “the instant motion seeking leave to amend the complaint is not the proper procedural

vehicle for Pfizer to dispute the substance of the claims sought to be added.” (Id. at 3) To the

extent that Defendant’s statement of non-opposition can be construed as an opposition to

Plaintiff’s motion—based on Defendant’s contentions that, for example, “[t]he filing of the

proposed amended complaint will serve only to further prolong this unnecessary litigation,” (id. at

2), and that “Plaintiff AntiCancer’s bid to amend its complaint is simply an effort to obtain a more

favorable settlement,” (id. at 3)—the Court nevertheless finds that amendment and joinder are

appropriate here. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 8, 2011

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00107-JLS-RBB Document 18 Filed 11/08/11 Page 2 of 2