Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01530/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01530-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:0078m(a) Securities Exchange Act

---

1

18-cv-1530-WQH-JLB

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

GANNON GIGUIERE, ANDREW 

HACKETT, and ANNETTA 

BUDHU,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18-cv-1530-WQH-JLB

ORDER

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint filed 

by Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission. (ECF No. 81).

On July 6, 2018, Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action against Defendants 

Gannon Giguiere, Oliver-Barret Lindsay, Andrew Hackett, Kevin Gillespie, and Annetta 

Budhu. (ECF No. 1). The Complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities 

Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) resulting from Defendants’ alleged schemes to 

“pump and dump” the common stock of three issuers—Kelvin Medical, Inc., Arias Intel 

Corp., and Eco Science Solutions, Inc. (Id. ¶ 11).

Case 3:18-cv-01530-WQH-JLB Document 91 Filed 08/04/22 PageID.<pageID>

Page 1 of 3
2

18-cv-1530-WQH-JLB

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

On June 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed the Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint. 

(ECF No. 81). The motion seeks to amend the Complaint to add a claim against Defendant 

Giguiere for unregistered sales of securities in violation of Section 5 of the Securities Act 

of 1933. Plaintiff contends that amendment is proper because “Giguiere, the only defendant

affected by this proposed amendment, consents to this motion” and that Plaintiff “is 

seeking leave of the Court to amend the Complaint in an abundance of caution.” (ECF No. 

81 at 2). Plaintiff contends that the court should grant leave to amend because “amendment 

would not prejudice [Defendant] Giguiere or any of the other parties,” “amendment would 

not be futile,” and “the other Foman factors do not apply.” (Id. at 5-6).

Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that leave to amend “be 

freely given when justice so requires.”15(a)(2). “This policy is to be applied with extreme 

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).

“[I]t 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.

Plaintiff has not previously sought to amend its Complaint. Plaintiff asserts that the 

only Defendant affected by the proposed amendment, Defendant Giguiere, has consented 

Case 3:18-cv-01530-WQH-JLB Document 91 Filed 08/04/22 PageID.<pageID>

Page 2 of 3
3

18-cv-1530-WQH-JLB

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

to amendment. The docket reflects that no parties have opposed Plaintiff’s motion. There 

is no evidence in the record that allowing amendment will prejudice any party or that any 

of the remaining Foman factors apply. The Court finds good cause to grant Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint 

(ECF No. 81) is granted. Plaintiff shall file the proposed first amended complaint attached 

to the Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint (ECF No. 81-1) within ten (10) days of 

the date of this Order.

Dated: August 4, 2022

Case 3:18-cv-01530-WQH-JLB Document 91 Filed 08/04/22 PageID.<pageID>

Page 3 of 3