Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02201/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02201-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

18

permits a party to amend its pleading once as a matter of right at any time before a responsive pleading

is served. Once a responsive pleading has been served, however, amendment requires written

consent of the adverse party or leave of the court. In accordance with the Rule 15(a)’s liberal

pleading standard, leave of the court “shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

15(a). 

Here, Medtronic clearly and inexplicably violated the plain language of Rule 15 by filing an

amended complaint without leave of court and over strenuous objection by Dr. White. When asked to

explain its blatant violation of Rule 15, Medtronic was unable to provide any satisfactory response. 

Had Medtronic complied with Rule 15(a) by filing a properly noticed motion to amend, it is likely that

under the liberal pleading standards and Ninth Circuit authority, that the motion would have been

granted. Medtronic did not elect this path, and as a result, Dr. White was forced to file a motion to

strike the amended complaint.

In the interest of preserving judicial resources, and in light of Rule 15’s liberal pleading

standards, the Court will permit Medtronic to file its amended complaint. Dr. White is HEREBY

ORDERED to file an amended answer by Friday, May 6, 2005. As a sanction for violating Rule 15,

however, Medtronic is FURTHER ORDERED to pay Dr. White’s attorneys’ fees and costs incurred

in filing his motion to strike. Dr. White shall submit a declaration attaching billing records supporting its

claim for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in connection with his motion to strike by no later than

Friday, April 29, 2005. The Court will issue an order regarding the attorneys’ fees after it has had an

opportunity to review the declaration. 

V. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing reasons, Dr. White’s motion for partial summary judgment is

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The motions for partial summary judgment filed by

Medtronic and LA Biomed are each DENIED. Genuine issues of material fact exist as to the

following issues:

(1) Whether Dr. White was able to derive directly the ideas, etc. that formed the basis for

the patents in suit from the two following problems identified in the Dilley Report and

by Ms. Eastwood: (a) problems associated with kinking of the graft, and (b) problems

Case 3:04-cv-02201-JSW Document 129 Filed 04/21/05 Page 1 of 1