Human Longevity, Inc. v. J. Craig Venter Inst., Inc., Case No.: 18cv1656-WQH-LL

CourtUnited States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
Writing for the CourtHAYES, Judge
PartiesHUMAN LONGEVITY, INC., Plaintiff, v. J. CRAIG VENTER INSTITUTE, INC. and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants.
Docket NumberCase No.: 18cv1656-WQH-LL
Decision Date06 February 2019

J. CRAIG VENTER INSTITUTE, INC. and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants.

Case No.: 18cv1656-WQH-LL


February 6, 2019


HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (ECF No. 47) filed Plaintiff Human Longevity, Inc.

I. Background

On December 18, 2018, the Court granted (ECF No. 45) the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 23) filed by Defendant J. Craig Venter Institute, Inc. (Defendant JCVI). On January 17, 2019, Plaintiff Human Longevity, Inc. (Plaintiff HLI) filed a Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (ECF No. 47). On February 5, 2019, Defendant JCVI filed a notice of Non Opposition (ECF No. 48) to Plaintiff HLI's Motion for Leave to Amend.

II. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 mandates that leave to amend "be freely given when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). "This policy is to be applied with extreme

Page 2

liberality." Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (quoting Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001)). The Supreme Court has identified several factors district courts should consider when deciding whether to grant leave to amend: "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, [and] futility of amendment." Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); see also Smith v. Pac. Props. Dev. Corp., 358 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th Cir. 2004). "Not all of the [Foman] factors merit equal weight. As this circuit and others have held, it is the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight." Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. "The party opposing amendment bears the burden of showing prejudice." DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987). "Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman factors, there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend." Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052.

III. Decision of the Court

Defendant JCVI does not oppose Plaintiff HLI's Motion, stating, "In light of the permissive standard that applies to HLI's request to file an amended complaint under Rule 15(a)(2), and in the interest of judicial economy, JCVI...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT