Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-03255/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-03255-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FLIPBOARD, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

KALLIOPE AMORPHOUS,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-03255-BLF 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion to Set Deadline for Defendant to File 

Compulsory Counterclaims or Waive Them. ECF 44. Plaintiff argues that, pursuant to Rule 13(a), 

Defendant, who is pro se, was required to assert any compulsory counterclaims in her Answer, 

filed on January 7, 2016. Id. at 1. In light of Defendant’s pro se status, Plaintiff now seeks a 

deadline by which Defendant must assert her counterclaims and asks the Court to deem any 

counterclaims not asserted waived and barred by res judicata in this or any other case. Id. 

Defendant opposes the motion. ECF 45.

The Court finds the request for a deadline to be premature and the request for a declaration 

of future waiver of claims to lack merit. The parties may agree to a last day to amend pleadings at 

the Initial Case Management Conference (“CMC”), set for March 3, 2016. Such a deadline is a 

typical part of a Case Management Order. However, the Court notes that omitting a counterclaim 

in an answer does not necessarily bar its introduction in the future. Under Rule 13(a), a pleading 

must state any claim that meets certain conditions as a counterclaim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 13. However, 

under Rule 15, a court must grant leave to amend to add a counterclaim when justice so requires.

Case 5:15-cv-03255-BLF Document 47 Filed 02/02/16 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

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 13 advisory committee’s note (“An amendment to add a counterclaim will be 

governed by Rule 15. . . leave should be freely given when justice so requires.”); see also Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 2, 2016

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-03255-BLF Document 47 Filed 02/02/16 Page 2 of 2