Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-00247/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-00247-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited. 1

Case No. C 07-247

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND

(JFLC1)

**E-Filed 1/22/2008**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DAVANZIA, S.L., a Spanish corporation,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

LASERSCOPE, INC., a California corporation, and

AMERICAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC., a

Minnesota corporation,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 07-247

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO 1

AMEND

[re: docket no. 73]

LASERSCOPE, INC., a California corporation, and

AMERICAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC., a

Minnesota corporation,

 Cross-Complainants,

 

 v.

DAVANZIA, S.L., a Spanish corporation,

 Cross-Defendant.

 

Davanzia, S.L. (“Davanzia”) moves for leave to amend its complaint. Laserscope, Inc.

Case 5:07-cv-00247-JF Document 81 Filed 01/22/08 Page 1 of 4
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

Case No. C 07-247

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND

(JFLC1)

(“Laserscope”) opposes the motion. The Court concludes that the motion is appropriate for

disposition without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). For the reasons set forth

below, the motion will be granted.

I. BACKGROUND

The operative complaint in this action is the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). The

SAC contains three claims asserted against Laserscope and American Medical Systems, Inc.

(“AMS”): (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and

(3) breach of express warranty. On June 12, 2007, Laserscope and AMS moved to dismiss the

SAC to the extent that its claims sought damages for the termination of the Authorized

International Distributor Agreement (“the Agreement”). AMS also moved to dismiss the

complaint in its entirety on the basis that Davanzia had not alleged alter-ego liability sufficiently. 

On July 30, 2007, the Court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice. With respect to

future amendment, the Court explained that: 

in light of the fact that the action will proceed on other claims made in the SAC, the

Court concludes that discovery will reveal additional facts relevant to the

negotiation of the Agreement or the relationship between AMS and Davanzia. 

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss will be granted without prejudice to a future

motion for leave to amend should discovery reveal such relevant facts.

July 30 Order at 8. Davanzia asserts that in early to mid-October of 2007, it became aware of

facts that would support a claim for breach of an exclusivity agreement between the parties,

including AMS. Davanzia now seeks leave to amend in order to add that claim.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 15(a) governs amendments to pleadings and

provides that, absent stipulation, after a responsive pleading has been filed subsequent

amendments are permitted only with leave of the court. Under Rule 15(a) “leave shall be freely

granted when justice so requires.” “This policy [of granting leave] is to be applied with extreme

liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc.

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, futility of amendment, etc.-the leave

sought should, as the rules require, be “freely given.”

Case 5:07-cv-00247-JF Document 81 Filed 01/22/08 Page 2 of 4
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

Case No. C 07-247

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND

(JFLC1)

Forman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 

Laserscope argues that leave should not be granted because Davanzia has delayed unduly

in bringing the instant motion. Laserscope bases its argument on the contention that

“[i]rrespective of the knowledge of counsel, Davanzia itself was clearly aware of both the

underlying facts [involved in the exclusivity claim] and their possible legal import,” for the past

two years. Counsel for Davanzia asserts that Davanzia did not become aware of the relevant

facts until October of 2007. Counsel also recites the following chronology: shortly after

discovering the relevant facts, Davanzia served Laserscope with requests of production of

documents concerning the potential claim; one month later Davanzia produced 2,000 pages of

documents; two weeks later, Davanzia informed Laserscope of its intent to amend the complaint

and sought additional discovery; during December of 2007, the parties attempted to stipulate to

the instant amendment; these efforts reached an impasse sometime around January 8, 2008, one

day before Davanzia filed for leave to amend. 

The Court concludes that on balance, there was no undue delay. In light of the liberal

standard governing leave to amend, and in light of the express language in the Court’s order of

July 30, 2007 leave to amend is granted.

IV. ORDER

Good cause therefor appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for leave to

amend is GRANTED.

DATED: January 22, 2008.

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-00247-JF Document 81 Filed 01/22/08 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Case No. C 07-247

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

William J. Frimel bill.frimel@dlapiper.com

Margaret A. Crawford maggie.crawford@dlapiper.com

Dianne L. Sweeney dianne@pillsburylaw.com

Gary Hansen ghansen@oppenheimer.com

Heather N. Hoecke hhoecke@oppenheimer.com

Case 5:07-cv-00247-JF Document 81 Filed 01/22/08 Page 4 of 4