Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01831/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01831-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125la 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEADERSHIP STUDIES, INC., dba

CENTER FOR LEADERSHIP

STUDIES, a California corporation,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 15cv1831-WQH-KSC

ORDER

v.

BLANCHARD TRAINING AND

DEVELOPMENT, INC., a California

corporation, and Does 1-10, inclusive,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Motion to Amend/Correct Second Amended

Complaint and File Third Amended Complaint (ECF No. 44) filed by Plaintiff

Leadership Studies, Inc. (“Plaintiff”).

I. Background

On August 17, 2015, Plaintiff Leadership Studies commenced this action by

filing the Complaint. (ECF No. 1). On November 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed the First

Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 10). On March 4, 2016, the Court granted Defendant

Blanchard Training and Development, Inc.’s (“Defendant’s”) Partial Motion to Dismiss

without prejudice. On April 13, 2016, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint.

(ECF No. 27). On April 27, 2016, Defendant filed the Answer to the Second Amended

- 1 - 15cv1831-WQH-KSC

Case 3:15-cv-01831-WQH-KSC Document 48 Filed 10/27/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
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

Complaint and included a counterclaim and affirmative defenses. (ECF No. 28).1 On 

August 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed the Motion to Amend/Correct the Second Amended

Complaint and File Third Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 44). On September 12,

2016, Defendant filed a response. (ECF No. 45). On September 19, 2016, Plaintiff

filed a reply. (ECF No. 46).

II. Discussion

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 mandates that leave to amend “be freely given

when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “This policy is to be applied with

extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th

Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted). In Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962), the Supreme

Court offered several factors for district courts to consider in deciding whether to grant

a motion to amend under Rule 15(a):

In the absence of any apparent or declared reason–such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to

the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of

amendment, etc.–the leave sought should, as the rules require, be “freely given.”

Foman, 371 U.S. at 182; see also Smith v. Pac. Prop. Dev. Co., 358 F.3d 1097, 1101

(9th Cir. 2004). “Not all of the [Foman] factors merit equal weight. As this circuit and

others have held, it is the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries

the greatest weight.” Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052 (citations omitted). “The

party opposing amendment bears the burden of showing prejudice.” DCD Programs,

Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987). “Absent 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.” Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052.

After review of the Motion to Amend/Correct the Second Amended Complaint

1

 On May 23, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Dismiss the counterclaim and various affirmative defenses. (ECF No. 30). Defendant filed a response on June 21, 2016. (ECF No. 34). Plaintiff filed a reply on June 28, 2016. (ECF No. 36). The Motion to Dismiss the counterclaim and affirmative defenses has been fully plead and

is before the Court. This Order does not address Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss.

- 2 - 15cv1831-WQH-KSC

Case 3:15-cv-01831-WQH-KSC Document 48 Filed 10/27/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
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

and File Third Amended Complaint and all related filings, the Court concludes that

Defendant has not made a sufficiently strong showing of the Foman factors to

overcome the presumption of Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend. See

Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052.

III. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Amend/Correct Second Amended

Complaint and File Third Amended Complaint (ECF No. 44) is GRANTED. Plaintiff

shall file the proposed third amended complaint attached to the motion (ECF No. 44-3)

within ten (10) days from the date of this order.

DATED: October 27, 2016

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - 15cv1831-WQH-KSC

Case 3:15-cv-01831-WQH-KSC Document 48 Filed 10/27/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3