Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01060/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01060-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

ANTHONY VELASCO, on behalf of

himself and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 12cv1060-WQH-MDD

ORDER

vs.

SEI PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., a

Florida Corporation, and DOES 1-10,

inclusive,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

filed by Plaintiff Anthony Velasco. (ECF No. 14).

I. Background

On April 30, 2012, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Complaint in this Court. 

(ECF No. 1).

On June 1, 2012, Defendant SEI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. filed a Motion to Dismiss the

Complaint. (ECF No. 5). On October 29, 2012, the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss and

dismissed the Complaint without prejudice. (ECF No. 12).

On November 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed the Motion for Leave to File First Amended

Complaint, accompanied by a proposed first amended complaint. (ECF No. 14).

On December 10, 2012, Defendant filed an opposition to the Motion for Leave to File

First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 16). Defendant contends: 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint should be

denied. Plaintiff’s proposed FAC fails to cure the defects contained within his

original Complaint which was dismissed by the Court. Plaintiff’s proposed FAC

fails to allege cognizable claims under the [California Unfair Competition Law],

[California Consumer Legal Remedies Act] and False Advertising laws. 

Further, Plaintiff’s claims fall within the primary jurisdiction of the FDA and

under that doctrine, the Court should defer to the regulatory authority of the

- 1 - 12cv1060-WQH-MDD

Case 3:12-cv-01060-WQH-MDD Document 19 Filed 01/25/13 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

FDA.

Id. at 16.

On December 17, 2012, Plaintiff filed a reply brief. (ECF No. 17). Plaintiff contends

that “Defendant has brought up only repeat arguments from its Motion to Dismiss and does not

even address the [Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] 8(a) or 9(b) arguments that were the

reason for the Court granting dismissal of the Complaint.” Id. at 3. Plaintiff contends: “[B]y

failing to address the adequacy of those amendments in opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for

Leave to Amend, Defendant should further be precluded from raising questions about the

adequacy of those amendments in a subsequent Motion to Dismiss.” Id.

II. Discussion

Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 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) (citing Forman factors).

“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 (citing DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183,

185 (9th Cir. 1987)). “The party opposing amendment bears the burden of showing prejudice.” 

DCD Programs, 833 F.2d at 187. “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.

- 2 - 12cv1060-WQH-MDD

Case 3:12-cv-01060-WQH-MDD Document 19 Filed 01/25/13 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

Defendant does not contend that the proposed first amended complaint would impose

undue prejudice or that Plaintiff has exhibited undue delay or bad faith. Defendant’s sole

argument against granting leave to amend is futility. 

“In view of Rule 15(a)’s permissive standard, courts ordinarily defer consideration of

challenges to the merits of a proposed amended pleading until after leave to amend is granted

and the amended pleading is filed.” Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., No. C-04-

4708, 2006 WL 3093812 at *2 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 31, 2006); see also Defazio v. Hollister, Inc.,

No. Civ. 04-1358, 2008 WL 2825045 at *2 (E.D. Cal., July 21, 2008) (“While some courts

liken the futility inquiry with that of a motion to dismiss, most recognize that denial of leave

to amend on futility grounds is rare.”) (quotation omitted); Netbula v. Distinct Corp., 212

F.R.D. 534, 539 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (“Ordinarily, courts will defer consideration of challenges

to the merits of a proposed amended pleading until after leave to amend is granted and the

amended pleading is filed.”).

After reviewing the proposed first amended complaint, the Court finds that the

appropriate procedure in this case is to “defer consideration of challenges to the merits of [the]

proposed amended pleading until after leave to amend is granted and the amended pleading

is filed.” Hynix Semiconductor Inc., 2006 WL 3093812 at *2. The Court grants Plaintiff’s

Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint. The Court denies Plaintiff’s request that

“Defendant should ... be precluded from raising questions about the adequacy of [the]

amendments in a subsequent Motion to Dismiss.” (ECF No. 17 at 3).

III. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

is GRANTED. (ECF No. 14). No later than fourteen (14) days from the date this Order is

filed, Plaintiff may file the proposed first amended complaint which is attached to the Motion

for Leave to File First Amended Complaint.

DATED: January 25, 2013

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - 12cv1060-WQH-MDD

Case 3:12-cv-01060-WQH-MDD Document 19 Filed 01/25/13 Page 3 of 3