Case No.: 5:17-cv-00688-EJD

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

1

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

FREDDIE ADAMS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BRG SPORTS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:17-cv-00688-EJD 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Re: Dkt. No. 44

Plaintiffs bring claims arising from allegedly defective football helmets manufactured by 

Defendants. Defendants have moved to dismiss and to sever Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs now 

move for leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiffs’ motion will be granted.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs are 42 “former high school athletes now suffering from several symptoms 

indicative of long-term brain and neurocognitive injuries.” Compl. ¶ 20, Dkt. No. 1. Defendants 

Riddell, Inc., BRG Sports, Inc., and All American Sports Corporation are manufacturers of 

football helmets. Id. ¶¶ 79–145. Plaintiffs allege that they suffered injuries resulting from 
Case No.: 5:17-cv-00688-EJD

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

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

Defendants’ defectively designed helmets and from Defendants’ negligence and failure to warn. 

Id.

Nonresident Defendants Riddell and All American Sports have moved to dismiss under 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 25. In addition, all defendants 

have moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 for failure to provide adequate notice and failure to 

plead plausible claims for design defects or failure to warn. Dkt. No. 26. Finally, all defendants 

have moved to sever Plaintiffs’ claims. Dkt. No. 27.

Plaintiffs now move for leave to file an amended complaint. Dkt. No. 44.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“[A] party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the 

court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

15(a)(2). “[R]ule 15’s policy of favoring amendments to pleadings should be applied with extreme 

liberality.” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987) (internal citations 

and quotations omitted). However, where a party moves to amend after a specific deadline to 

amend pleadings, the “good cause” standard for modification of a scheduling order under Rule 

16(b) governs. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607–08 (9th Cir. 1992).

Here, the more lenient Rule 15(a) standard applies because the Court has not yet set a 

deadline for filing amended pleadings. Under Rule 15(a), leave to amend should be granted unless 

amendment (1) would cause prejudice to the opposing party, (2) is sought in bad faith, (3) creates 

undue delay, or (4) is futile. Chudacoff v. Univ. Med. Ctr. of S. Nev., 649 F.3d 1143, 1153 (9th 

Cir. 2011). Consideration of prejudice to the opposing party carries the greatest weight. Eminence 

Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003).

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs seek to amend their complaint to cure the deficiencies that Defendants identify in 

their two motions to dismiss (at Dkt. Nos. 25 and 26). Dkt No. 44. In particular, Plaintiffs seek to 

add facts identifying where and when each Plaintiff played high school football, to add facts about 
Case No.: 5:17-cv-00688-EJD

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

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

the liability of each Defendant, and to add facts showing why the nonresident defendants are 

subject to personal jurisdiction. Id. at 3.

Defendants also suggest that amendment would “unfairly prejudice” them. Dkt. No. 45 at 

10. The Court finds that Defendants would suffer minimal prejudice since the nature of the claims 

and the underlying legal theories would remain unchanged in Plaintiffs’ amended complaint.

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ proposed amendments are futile because they fail to 

overcome Defendants’ arguments in favor of dismissal and severance. Dkt. No. 45 at 1. Whether 

Plaintiffs’ amended pleadings are sufficient to survive Defendants’ challenges, however, is a 

question on the merits under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, 12(b)(2), and 20(a). Under Rule 15(a), “courts 

ordinarily defer consideration of challenges to the merits of a proposed amended pleading until 

after leave to amend is granted and the amended pleading is filed.” Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. 

Toshiba Corp., No. C-04-04708 VRW, 2006 WL 3093812, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2006).

Accordingly, amendment is warranted here. Defendants may refile their motions for dismissal and 

severance to address the added factual allegations in Plaintiffs’ amended complaint.

IV. CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amended complaint (Dkt. No. 44) is GRANTED. 

Defendants’ motions to dismiss and to sever (Dkt. Nos. 25, 26, and 27) are DENIED without 

prejudice. Plaintiffs shall file their amended complaint as a separate docket entry.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 9, 2017

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge