Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02901/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02901-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

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

E.DIGITAL CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13-cv-2901-H-BGS

ORDER GRANTING JOINT

MOTION TO GIVE

PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE

FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT

[Doc. Nos. 17 & 23]

vs.

FUSION-IO, INC.,

Defendant.

On December 5, 2013, Plaintiff e.Digital Corporation filed its complaint against

Defendant Fusion-IO, Inc. (USA). (Doc. No. 1.) On March 17, 2014, Defendant filed

its amended answer to the complaint. (Doc. No. 15.) On April 2, 2014, the parties

filed a joint motion to extend Defendant’s deadline to answer or otherwise respond to

the complaint. (Doc. No. 17.) On April 18, 2014, the parties filed a joint motion to

give Plaintiff leave to file a First Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 23.)

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), “a party may amend its pleading

only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

15(a)(2). The “court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Id. Granting

leave to amend restsin the sound discretion of the trial court. Int’l Ass’n of Machinists

& Aerospace Workers v. Republic Airlines, 761 F.2d 1386, 1390 (9th Cir. 1985). This

discretion must be guided by the strong federal policy favoring the disposition of cases

- 1 - 13cv2901

Case 3:13-cv-02901-H-BGS Document 25 Filed 05/02/14 Page 1 of 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

on the merits and permitting amendments with “extreme liberality.” DCD Programs

Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987). “Five factors are taken into

account to assess the propriety of a motion for leave to amend: bad faith, undue delay,

prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, and whether the plaintiff has

previously amended the complaint.” Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th

Cir. 2004) (citing Nunes v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 815, 818 (9th Cir. 2003)). 

The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s motion to amend is not driven by bad faith

or with the intent to cause prejudice or undue delay to the Defendant. Defendant joins

Plaintiff’s motion and does not dispute the absence of delay or prejudice. In addition,

the Court notes that the first deadline in the Court’s consolidated scheduling order

requires Plaintiff to serve Defendant with a “Disclosure of Asserted Claims and

Infringement Contentions” on or before June 9, 2014. (See e.Digital Corporation v.

Cavalry Storage, Inc., Case No. 13-cv-2892-H, Doc. No. 26, Consol. Sched. Ord (April

25, 2014).) 

After a careful analysis of the factors set forth in Johnson, the Court concludes

that Plaintiff should be granted leave to file a first amended complaint. See Johnson,

356 F.3d at 1077. For good cause shown, the Court grants the joint motion and gives

Plaintiff leave to amend its complaint. Plaintiff must file its First Amended Complaint

on or before May 9, 2014. Defendant has fourteen (14) days after being served

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint to file an answer or otherwise respond. All dates

in the Court’s consolidated scheduling order remain in effect.

The Court denies the parties’ joint motion to extend Defendant’s deadline to

answer or otherwise respond to the initial complaint as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 2, 2014

______________________________

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

- 2 - 13cv2901

Case 3:13-cv-02901-H-BGS Document 25 Filed 05/02/14 Page 2 of 2