Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01936/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01936-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

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

A motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading within the meaning Rule 15(a). See

e.g., Shaver v. Operating Engineers Local 428 Pension Trust Fund, 332 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir.

2003). 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

BMW of NORTH AMERICA, LLC and

BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AG,

Plaintiff,

v.

MINI WORKS, LLC,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-1936-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Doc.

10). For the following reasons, the Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED.

 Rule 15(a) provides that a “party may amend the party’s pleading once as a matter

of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Here, on

November 9, 2007, Defendants filed a document that was titled “Answer,” however did not

comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in terms of a responsive pleading. It did

however request that this Court dismiss the case, essentially acting as a Motion to Dismiss.

Therefore, the Court will interpret the November 9, 2007 document as a Motion to Dismiss.

For that reason, because no responsive pleading has been served Plaintiff retains an

automatic right to amend the pleadings single time.1

 

Case 2:07-cv-01936-SMM Document 17 Filed 12/18/07 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 -

Even assuming the document filed on November 9th was to be construed as an

Answer, despite the fact that it in no way resembles an Answer under the Rules, leave to

amend pleadings “shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).

Unless the opposing party can show prejudice, bad faith, or undue delay, a court should grant

leave to file an amended pleading. Foman v. Davis, 271 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); see also

Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[a]bsent

prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman factors, there exists a

presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend”). The Court finds that

justice so requires that leave be given to amend at this initial stage of litigation. There is no

likelihood that prejudice will befall Defendants simply by Plaintiffs’ filing of a First

Amended Complaint. Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ request for leave is not the result of any undue

delay or bad faith.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint

(Doc. 10) is GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall file the Proposed First

Amended Complaint attached as Doc. 11. 

DATED this 18th day of December, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01936-SMM Document 17 Filed 12/18/07 Page 2 of 2