Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-06867/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-06867-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:501 Copyright Infringement

---

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

CHAZ REETZ-LAIOLO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

EMMA CLINE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:17-cv-06867-WHO 

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE 

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

Re: Dkt. Nos. 88, 89

On September 18, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a fourth amended 

complaint to add a conversion claim related to defendants’ alleged possession of screenshots 

obtained by hacking into plaintiffs’ computer. Dkt. No. 88. Today, defendants filed a motion to 

modify the September 21 deadline to file a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint, 

pending my decision on plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend. Dkt. No. 89. Plaintiffs gave notice 

that they would oppose that request. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 dictates that “[t]he court should freely give leave when 

justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “Courts consider five factors when deciding 

whether to grant a motion for leave to amend pursuant to Rule 15: (i) bad faith on the part of the 

movant; (ii) undue delay in filing the motion; (iii) prejudice to the opposing party; (iv) futility of 

amendment; and (v) whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.” Victor v. R.C. 

Bigelow, Inc., No. 13-cv-02976-WHO, 2015 WL 4104609, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 7, 2015). 

“Above all, in exercising its discretion, the court ‘must be guided by the underlying purpose of 

Rule 15—to facilitate decision on the merits, rather than on the pleadings or technicalities.’” 

Castillo-Antonio v. Mejia, No. 14-cv-03637-JSC, 2014 WL 6735523, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 

2014).

Plaintiffs have pursued their amendment in good faith and without undue delay upon 

Case 3:17-cv-06867-WHO Document 92 Filed 09/20/18 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

learning that defendants allegedly had and have retained possession of the screenshots that 

resulted from the hacking activity that forms of the basis of their complaint. The proposed 

amendments do not appear futile, particularly given that the related case between the parties (17-

cv-6866) involves a similar conversion claim. See Barahona v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 881 F.3d 

1122, 1134 (9th Cir. 2018) (“[L]eave to amend should be denied as futile ‘only if no set of facts 

can be proved under the amendment to the pleadings that would constitute a valid and sufficient 

claim or defense[.]’”). And there is little to no prejudice since this case remains in the early stages 

of discovery. See Castillo-Antonio v. Mejia, No. 14-CV-03637-JSC, 2014 WL 6735523, at *2 

(N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2014) (“Other courts have found prejudice when the amendment comes on the 

eve or close of discovery... .”). 

Since the factors support granting leave to amend, plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED. The 

file date of the fourth amended complaint will be deemed the date of this order. This order moots 

defendants’ motion to modify the deadline to file a motion to dismiss the third amended 

complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 20, 2018

William H. Orrick

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-06867-WHO Document 92 Filed 09/20/18 Page 2 of 2