Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00536/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00536-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 18:1836(b) Civil Action to Protect Trade Secrets

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEERPOINT GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

AGRIGENIX LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cv-00536-AWI-BAM

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

(Doc. No. 68)

Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff Deerpoint Group, Inc.’s (“Deerpoint”) 

motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 15(a)(2). (Doc. No. 68.) Defendants Agrigenix, LLC and Sean Mahoney 

(“Defendants”) did not file an opposition. pursuant to Local Rule 230(c). The Court found the 

matter suitable for decision without the need for oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g) and 

vacated the hearing on the motion set for February 28, 2020. (Doc. No. 79.) Having considered 

the motion as well as the record in this case, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend shall be 

GRANTED. 

BACKGROUND

On April 18, 2018, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants alleging claims for trade 

secret misappropriation, false advertising, two claims for breach of contract, two related claims 

Case 1:18-cv-00536-JLT-BAM Document 80 Filed 02/24/20 Page 1 of 5
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

for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional interference with prospective 

economic advantage, and unfair competition. (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff is in the business of 

chemical water treatment solutions for agricultural irrigation and alleges that Defendant 

Mahoney, one of its former employees, launched Defendant Agrigenix, LLC as a direct 

competitor to Plaintiff using Plaintiff’s confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information. 

(Id.)

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(6), which was granted in part and denied in part. (Doc. Nos. 10, 26.) On 

December 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint consistent with the Court’s order 

granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 27.) On January 14, 2019, Defendants filed a 

motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(6). (Doc. No. 30.) The Court granted the motion as to the claims for breach of the implied 

covenant of good faith with leave to amend and otherwise denied the motion. (Doc. No. 48.) 

Plaintiffs did not further amend the complaint but filed a motion for reconsideration of the 

Court’s order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ first motion to dismiss, which was 

denied. (Doc. Nos. 50, 65.) Defendant filed an answer to the First Amended Complaint on July 

16, 2019. (Doc. No. 51.)

On August 16, 2019, the Court issued a Scheduling Order in this case. (Doc. No. 61.) 

Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, a deadline for any stipulated amendments or motions to amend 

the pleadings was set for January 10, 2020. (Id.)

On January 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to amend. (Doc. No. 68.) 

According to the motion, Defendants have produced documents in the course of discovery 

containing specific information as to the composition of Defendants’ products, details as to the 

manner in which those products were being made, and the identity of a third party that was 

making the products for Defendants. (Id.) Plaintiff therefore seeks to name the third party, 

Custom AG Formulators, Inc. (“Custom AG”), as a defendant and to bring a patent infringement 

claim against Defendants and Custom AG. (Id.) The claims previously dismissed by the Court 

are not realleged in the proposed Second Amended Complaint, a copy of which is attached as 

Case 1:18-cv-00536-JLT-BAM Document 80 Filed 02/24/20 Page 2 of 5
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

3

Exhibit A to the Declaration of Jon Michaelson submitted in support of the motion. (See Doc. 

Nos. 26, 48, 68-2.) 

DISCUSSION

Here, Plaintiff’s motion to amend is timely pursuant to the deadlines set by the Scheduling 

Order. (See Doc. Nos. 61, 68.) The motion is therefore considered under the standard for 

amendment to the pleadings set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. See Johnson v. 

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that a motion to amend filed 

after a deadline set forth in a pretrial scheduling order must satisfy the requirements of Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 16.)

Rule 15(a) provides that a court “should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so 

requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The United States Supreme Court has stated:

[i]n 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 v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). The intent of the rule is to “facilitate decision on the 

merits, rather than on the pleadings or technicalities.” Chudacoff v. Univ. Med. Center of S. Nev., 

649 F.3d 1143, 1152 (9th Cir. 2011). Consequently, the “policy of favoring amendments to 

pleadings should be applied with ‘extreme liberality.’” United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 

(9th Cir. 1981). 

To evaluate a motion to amend under Rule 15, the Court considers the following factors: 

(1) undue delay; (2) bad faith; (3) prejudice to the opponent; and (4) futility of amendment.

Loehr v. Ventura County Cmty. Coll. Dist., 743 F.2d 1310, 1319 (9th Cir. 1984). These factors 

are not of equal weight as prejudice to the opposing party has long been held to be the most 

critical factor in determining whether to grant leave to amend. Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, 

Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (“As this circuit and others have held, it is the 

consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight”); Jackson v. 

Case 1:18-cv-00536-JLT-BAM Document 80 Filed 02/24/20 Page 3 of 5
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

4

Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Prejudice to the opposing party is the 

most important factor.”). Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining three 

factors, a presumption exists under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend. Eminence 

Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. 

Defendants did not file a timely opposition to the motion and the Court construes 

Defendants’ failure to file a timely opposition as a non-opposition to the motion. Local Rule 

230(c). Having considered the moving papers as well as the non-opposition from Defendants, the 

Court finds that Plaintiff has not unduly delayed in seeking to amend the complaint, the 

amendment is not brought in bad faith, there will be no prejudice to Defendants in permitting the 

amendment, and there is no indication that such amendment is futile. Accordingly, leave to 

amend will be granted.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons discussed above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 68) is 

GRANTED; 

2. Within seven (7) days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall file its Second

Amended Complaint;

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to issue summons as to Custom AG Formulators, 

Inc.;

4. Plaintiff shall effectuate service of the summons and Second Amended Complaint 

on Custom AG Formulators, Inc. within the time limit for service prescribed by Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 4(m);

5. Defendants shall file an answer or other responsive pleading to the Second Amended 

Complaint in compliance with the time frames of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any 

relevant Local Rules following service of the First Amended Complaint; and

6. The Court SETS a STATUS CONFERENCE for May 5, 2020, at 9:00 AM in 

Courtroom 8 (BAM) before the undersigned. Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this order on Custom 

AG Formulators, Inc. The parties are encouraged to appear at the status conference by telephone 

Case 1:18-cv-00536-JLT-BAM Document 80 Filed 02/24/20 Page 4 of 5
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

5

with each party using the following dial-in number and access code: dial-in number 1-877-411-

9748; access code 3219139.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 24, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-00536-JLT-BAM Document 80 Filed 02/24/20 Page 5 of 5