Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06893/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06893-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WOODSIDE HOTELS AND RESORTS

GROUP SERVICES CORPORATION and

MONTEREY PLAZA HOTEL, L.P.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CUSTOM HOUSE HOTEL, L.P., doing

business as PORTOLA PLAZA HOTEL;

CUSTOM HOUSE, INC., and CDT

INVESTMENTS, INC.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-06893 WHA

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST

AMENDED ANSWER AND

COUNTERCLAIM AND

VACATING HEARING

In this action for trademark infringement and false advertising, defendants Custom

House Hotel, L.P., Custom House, Inc., and CDT Investments, Inc., move to file a first

amended answer and counterclaim. Plaintiffs Woodside Hotels and Resorts Group Services

Corporation and Monterey Plaza Hotel, L.P. do not oppose this motion. Defendants have

timely moved for leave to file a first amended answer and have shown good cause for doing so. 

Accordingly, defendants’ motion for leave to file a first amended answer and counterclaim is

GRANTED. 

Plaintiffs filed this action on November 3, 2006, alleging claims of false advertising,

trademark infringement, unfair competition, trademark dilution and unjust enrichment in

connection with defendants’ use of certain marks on their hotel’s website. Plaintiffs contend

that these marks are confusingly similar to plaintiffs’ own marks. Defendants answered and

Case 3:06-cv-06893-WHA Document 40 Filed 03/26/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

filed a counterclaim on December 13, 2006. A case management scheduling order issued on

February 13, 2007, which set a deadline of February 22, 2007, for seeking leave to amend or to

add new parties. Defendants brought this motion on that day.

Under FRCP 15(a), “leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires.” 

This standard is applied liberally. “In 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, etc. — the leave sought should, as the rules require, be

‘freely given.’” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 

Here, defendants sought leave to amend within the deadline set by the case management

order. There is no evidence of any bad faith or dilatory motive in defendants’ motion. Finally,

because plaintiffs do not oppose this motion, there will be no undue prejudice to them in

allowing defendants to file an amended answer and counterclaim. 

For all the above-stated reasons, defendants motion for leave to file an amended answer

and counterclaim is GRANTED. Seeing that no further argument is necessary, the hearing on

this motion is hereby VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 26, 2007. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-06893-WHA Document 40 Filed 03/26/07 Page 2 of 2