Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-04312/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-04312-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:2 Antitrust Litigation

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

TEVRA BRANDS LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-04312-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

AND TERMINATING BAYER 

HEALTHCARE LLC’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS THE COMPLAINT

[ECF 25, 79]

On July 26, 2019, Plaintiff Tevra Brands LLC (“Tevra”) sued Defendants Bayer HealthCare 

LLC (“Bayer HealthCare”), Bayer Animal Health GmbH (“Bayer Animal”), and Bayer AG, alleging 

various violations of the Clayton Antitrust Act and the Sherman Antitrust Act. ECF 1. The suit 

concerns topical flea and tick treatments containing the active ingredient Imidacloprid. Id. ¶¶ 1,15. 

The Complaint claimed, inter alia, that Defendants have (1) forced retailers and distributors to agree 

not to carry generic Imidacloprid topicals in competition with Defendants’ name brand products, id.

¶ 3, and (2) illegally tied the purchase of their topical treatments with their patented flea collar, id.

¶¶ 4-5. 

On September 27, 2019, Bayer HealthCare1 moved to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). ECF 25 (“MTD”). The motion was for set for hearing 

on February 27, 2020. Id. In connection with that motion, on November 14, 2019, Bayer 

HealthCare filed a request for judicial notice asking the Court to consider various contracts between 

Bayer HealthCare and its dealers. ECF 43. Bayer HealthCare argued that these contracts were 

 

1 The motion was brought only by Bayer HealthCare, as the other two Bayer entities had not been 

served at the time of filing. See ECF 25 at 1. As of February 10, 2020, Plaintiff was still in the 

process of serving Bayer Animal and Bayer AG in Germany. See ECF 79 ¶ 2. 

Case 5:19-cv-04312-BLF Document 92 Filed 03/16/20 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

“incorporated by reference” in the Complaint, id. at 1, though it is undisputed that Plaintiff did not 

have access to these agreements when it drafted the Complaint, see ECF 39; ECF 79 (“Mot. for 

Leave”) ¶ 2. 

Then, on February 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File a First Amended 

Complaint (“FAC”). ECF 79. According to Plaintiff, the primary purpose of amendment is “to 

address the agreements with retailers and distributors that Bayer HealthCare LLC first produced on 

November 14, 2019.” Mot. for Leave at 2-3. In the interest of judicial economy and to avoid

unnecessary travel costs for the parties’ counsel, the Court continued the hearing for Bayer

HealthCare’s motion to dismiss to March 26, 2020, by which time Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave 

would be fully briefed. See ECF 83. The Motion for Leave—which Bayer HealthCare has 

opposed—is now ripe for the Court’s decision. Having reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court 

finds that the motion is suitable for decision without oral argument and GRANTS it. 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 15(a), leave to amend “shall be freely given 

when justice so requires.” See also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 

The Ninth Circuit has repeatedly instructed district courts to grant leave to amend unless one or 

more of the following factors is present: (1) undue delay, (2) bad faith or dilatory motive, (3) 

repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendment, (4) undue prejudice to the opposing party, and 

(5) futility of amendment. See Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th 

Cir. 2003) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). As explained below, the Court finds 

that none of these factors justifies denial of leave to amend here. 

To begin with, it is perfectly reasonable for Plaintiff to amend its complaint to account for 

the dealer agreements. The parties clearly agree that the agreements are relevant to Plaintiff’s

claims, as Bayer HealthCare sought judicial notice of them. However, Bayer HealthCare contends 

that Plaintiff unduly delayed in amending its complaint, as Plaintiff came into possession of the

dealer agreements in November 2019. See ECF 86 (“Opp.”) at 1-2. There are at least two problems 

with this objection. First, even if the Court agreed that a delay of three months was “undue,” the 

Ninth Circuit has made clear that “delay alone is not sufficient to justify the denial of . . . leave to 

amend.” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987). Second, and more

Case 5:19-cv-04312-BLF Document 92 Filed 03/16/20 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

importantly, Plaintiff filed its Motion for Leave by the deadline to amend pleadings or add parties

in the parties’ stipulated case schedule. See ECF 72 (setting deadline as February 10, 2020). The 

Court is therefore not persuaded that Plaintiff’s filing “threatens the overall schedule for this case,” 

Opp. at 1. 

Second, Bayer HealthCare argues that amendment would prejudice it because it “will have 

spent significant time in briefing, preparing and arguing a motion to dismiss that will be mooted.” 

Opp. at 2. Although the Court is sympathetic to Bayer HealthCare’s frustration, this is not a 

sufficiently serious showing of prejudice to rebut the presumption in favor of leave to amend. As 

Plaintiff points out, the litigation is still at an early stage: Fact discovery remains open and, again, 

Plaintiff met the parties’ agreed-upon deadline to amend its pleading. Bayer HealthCare has not

articulated any prejudice to its ability to defend this suit. To the extent Bayer HealthCare believes 

the FAC has failed to cure the flaws in the original Complaint, it is certainly free to renew those 

arguments. Ultimately, considering the apparent importance of the dealer agreements to this suit, 

the Court believes efficiency will be served by permitting Plaintiff to clarify its theories in light of 

those agreements. 

Finally, Bayer HealthCare contends that amendment would be futile because the FAC 

remains deficient for the reasons articulated in its pending Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. Opp. 

at 2. Amendment is futile only if “the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of 

other facts.” Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127. Even if Plaintiff’s claims are deficient in the ways urged by 

Bayer HealthCare, the Court is not prepared to say that amendment would be futile. 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a First Amended 

Complaint, ECF 79. Plaintiff shall file the FAC no later than March 20, 2020. As the operative 

complaint is now the First Amended Complaint, Bayer Healthcare’s Motion to Dismiss the 

Complaint, ECF 25, is hereby TERMINATED as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 16, 2020

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:19-cv-04312-BLF Document 92 Filed 03/16/20 Page 3 of 3