Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-04444/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-04444-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1051 Trademark Infringement

---

1

Case No.: 5:13-cv-04444 EJD

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JACK IN THE BOX, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEEPAK MEHTA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:13-cv-04444 EJD 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Re: Dkt. No. 155

Presently before the court in this trademark and breach of contract action is Plaintiff Jack 

In The Box, Inc.’s (“JIB”) Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint. See Docket Item 

No. 155. Defendants Deepak Mehta, Kiran Mehta, Mehta Enterprises, Inc. and Deepak 

Enterprises, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) have filed written opposition to the motion. See 

Docket Item No. 163. 

Federal jurisdiction arises pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This matter is suitable for 

decision without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). Accordingly, the hearing 

scheduled for January 8, 2015, is VACATED. Having carefully considered the pleadings filed by 

the parties, the court finds, concludes and orders as follows:

1. Since this motion was filed after the court-imposed deadline for amendments to the 

pleadings (see Docket Item No. 54), JIB must initially demonstrate sufficient “good 

Case 5:13-cv-04444-EJD Document 168 Filed 01/05/15 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No.: 5:13-cv-04444 EJD

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

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

Northern District of California

cause” to modify the scheduling order. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations Inc., 975 

F.2d 604, 607-608 (1992). “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the 

diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Id. at 609. Here, JIB was diligent 

under the circumstances because it filed this motion soon after two events made it clear 

that litigation was inevitable: (1) efforts at an informal resolution proved unsuccessful, 

and (2) Defendants’ motion for leave to amend its Answer was granted while JIB’s 

early summary judgment motion was denied. Indeed, as this court recognized in 

relation to Defendants’ request to amend their own pleading, making an amendment 

request while settlement discussions were ongoing would have been unproductive and 

potentially damaging to those discussions. See Docket Item No. 133. Accordingly, the 

court finds that JIB has satisfied its burden to demonstrate good cause under Rule 16.

2. JIB must also show that its proposed amendments are appropriate under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 15. Although the Rule 15 standard is a liberal one, a request for 

leave to amend may be denied where the amendment would cause the opposing party 

undue prejudice, is sought in bad faith, constitutes an exercise in futility, or creates 

undue delay. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Janicki Logging Co. v. 

Mateer,42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir. 1994). The consideration of prejudice to the 

opposing party “carries the greatest weight.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 

316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). Despite Defendants’ contentions to the contrary,

the court is not persuaded that the minor amendments proposed by JIB are futile or 

sought in bad faith. Similarly, the proposed amendments will not result in undue delay

since discovery has not yet closed and the court may still set trial dates at the upcoming 

pretrial conference. Furthermore, Defendants’ articulation of “severe” prejudice, based 

entirely on litigation with another party in another court, is unconvincing. 

Accordingly, the court finds that the proposed amendments are also acceptable under 

Rule 15. 

Case 5:13-cv-04444-EJD Document 168 Filed 01/05/15 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No.: 5:13-cv-04444 EJD

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

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

Northern District of California

Based on the foregoing, JIB’s Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint is 

GRANTED. JIB shall file the First Amended Complaint as a separate docket entry on ECF

forthwith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2015

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-04444-EJD Document 168 Filed 01/05/15 Page 3 of 3