Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02380/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02380-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1051 Trademark Infringement

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

1

 On September 10, 2006, Plaintiff filed a request to file a sur-reply. The Court

DENIES Plaintiff’s request.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JARRITOS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

LOS JARRITOS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-02380 JSW

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO AMEND

Now before the Court is the motion by defendants Los Jarritos, Dolores Reyes dba Los

Jarritos (“Reyes”), and Francisco Reyes (collectively, “Defendants”) to for leave to amend their

answer to add two new affirmative defenses and two new counterclaims. The motion for leave

to amend is now fully briefed and ripe for decision.1 The Court finds that this matter is

appropriate for disposition without oral argument and the matter is deemed submitted. See N.D.

Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Accordingly, the hearing set for September 22, 2006 is VACATED. Having

carefully reviewed the parties’ papers, considered their arguments and the relevant legal

authority, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ motion for leave to amend.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) permits a party to amend its pleading once as a

matter of right at any time before a responsive pleading is served. Once a responsive pleading 

has been served, however, amendment requires written consent of the adverse party or leave of

the court. In accordance with the Rule 15(a)’s liberal pleading standard, leave of the court

Case 3:05-cv-02380-JSW Document 87 Filed 09/19/06 Page 1 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

“shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Though the decision to

grant or deny a motion for leave to amend is governed by the district court’s discretion, the 

general rule is that amendment of the pleadings is to be permitted unless the opposing party

makes a showing of bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing side, and futility of

amendment. See Forman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 230 (1962); Lockheed Martin Corp. v.

Network Solutions, Inc., 194 F.3d 980, 986 (9th Cir. 1999).

First, Defendants argue that their proposed amendments are based in part on documents

they recently received from Plaintiff regarding the ownership and registration of the trademarks

at issue. Moreover, the parties stipulated to, and the Court agreed, to extend the deadline to file

any motion to amend until July 14, 2006. (Docket No. 39.) Defendants filed their motion to

amend within this deadline. Therefore, there is no evidence of undue delay in moving to amend. 

Second, there is no evidence of bad faith. 

Third, there is no evidence of prejudice to Defendants in this matter. To the extent

Plaintiff wants an opportunity to conduct discovery, the Court hereby extends the discovery cutoff for 90 days from the date of this Order for the limited purpose of conducting discovery on

the new affirmative defenses and counterclaims. 

Lastly, Defendants argue that the amendment is futile. Leave to amend is properly

denied where the amendment would be futile. DeSoto v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 957 F.2d

655, 658 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff argues that there are documents which prove that it owns the

trademarks at issue and that the registrations are now incontestible. Even if it were proper for

the Court to evaluate extrinsic evidence in determining whether leave to amend should be

granted, Plaintiff did not submit the documents upon which it relies to the Court. Therefore, the

Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff’s arguments are well supported. Moreover, Plaintiff’s

arguments are based on underlying facts and thus, are better resolved on a motion for summary

judgment or trial, rather than at the pleading stage. Therefore, the Court declines to find at this

procedural stage that Defendants’ proposed amendments are futile.

Plaintiff having failed to demonstrate bad faith, undue delay, prejudice or futility of

amendment, the Court exercises its discretion and grants Defendants’ motion for leave to amend

Case 3:05-cv-02380-JSW Document 87 Filed 09/19/06 Page 2 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

3

their answer to add the proposed two affirmative defenses and counterclaims. Defendants shall

file and serve the amended answer and counterclaims within 10 days of this Order. Plaintiff

shall answer or otherwise respond within 20 days of service of the amended answer and

counterclaims. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 19, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-02380-JSW Document 87 Filed 09/19/06 Page 3 of 3