Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01656/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01656-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 18:1836(a) Injunction against Misappropriation of Trade Secrets

---

1

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

HUMAN LONGEVITY, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. CRAIG VENTER INSTITUTE, 

INC. and DOES 1-100, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18cv1656-WQH-LL

ORDER

HAYES, Judge: 

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

(ECF No. 47) filed Plaintiff Human Longevity, Inc. 

I. Background

On December 18, 2018, the Court granted (ECF No. 45) the Motion to Dismiss (ECF 

No. 23) filed by Defendant J. Craig Venter Institute, Inc. (Defendant JCVI). On January 

17, 2019, Plaintiff Human Longevity, Inc. (Plaintiff HLI) filed a Motion for Leave to File 

Amended Complaint (ECF No. 47). On February 5, 2019, Defendant JCVI filed a notice 

of Non Opposition (ECF No. 48) to Plaintiff HLI’s Motion for Leave to Amend. 

II. Legal Standard

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 

Case 3:18-cv-01656-WQH-LL Document 49 Filed 02/06/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
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

liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) 

(per curiam) (quoting Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th 

Cir. 2001)). The Supreme Court has identified several factors district courts should 

consider when deciding whether to grant leave to amend: “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, [and] futility of amendment.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 

182 (1962); see also Smith v. Pac. Props. Dev. Corp., 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. “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.

III. Decision of the Court

Defendant JCVI does not oppose Plaintiff HLI’s Motion, stating, “In light of the 

permissive standard that applies to HLI’s request to file an amended complaint under Rule 

15(a)(2), and in the interest of judicial economy, JCVI believes a motion to dismiss under 

Rule 12(b)(6) is the proper procedural vehicle to challenge the proposed amended 

pleading.” (ECF No. 48 at 3). The Court finds that there has been no showing of the 

Foman factors to warrant deviating from the “presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of 

granting leave to amend.” Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. The Court will defer 

consideration of any challenge to the merits of the proposed amended complaint until after 

the amended pleading is filed. See In re Packaged Seafood Prod. Antitrust Litig., 338 F. 

Supp. 3d 1079, 1106–07 (S.D. Cal. 2018) (“Courts ordinarily do not consider the validity 

of a proposed amended pleading in deciding whether to grant leave to amend, and instead 

Case 3:18-cv-01656-WQH-LL Document 49 Filed 02/06/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
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

defer consideration of challenges to the merits of a proposed amendment until after leave 

to amend is granted and the amended pleadings are filed.”). 

 The Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (ECF No. 47) filed by Plaintiff 

HLI is GRANTED. Plaintiff HLI may file the proposed amended complaint (ECF No. 47-

3) on or before February 22, 2019. 

Dated: February 6, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-01656-WQH-LL Document 49 Filed 02/06/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3