1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 AYLA, LLC, Case No. 19-cv-00679-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED

9 v. COMPLAINT

10 ALYA SKIN PTY. LTD., Re: Dkt. No. 98 11 Defendant.

12 13 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended 14 complaint, Dkt. No. 98, which is now fully briefed, see Dkt. Nos. 101, 102.1 15 Plaintiff seeks to “(1) add Macek Consulting LLC and Jason Macek, doing business as 16 Dollar Fulfillment, as Defendants and (2) add claims for Trademark Counterfeiting under 15 17 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a) and Trademark Cybersquatting under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d).” Dkt. No. 98 at 4. 18 Under Federal Rule of Procedure 15(a)(2), “leave to amend shall be freely granted ‘when justice 19 so requires.’” Townsend v. Univ. of Alaska, 543 F.3d 478, 485 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Fed. R. 20 Civ. P. 15(a)(2)). “This policy is to be applied with extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC 21 v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). The five 22 factors relevant to determining whether leave to amend should be granted are (1) bad faith, (2) 23 undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of amendment, and (5) previous 24 amendments. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); see also Wash. State Republican Party 25 v. Wash. State Grange, 676 F.3d 784, 797 (9th Cir. 2012) (same factors). The Court weighs 26 prejudice to the opposing party most heavily. Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). 27 1 “Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman factors, there exists a 2 || presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Jd. (emphasis in original). 3 Having carefully considered the parties’ arguments, the Court finds that Defendant has 4 || failed to demonstrate prejudice or make a strong showing as to any of the other Foman factors, 5 such that the presumption in favor of granting leave to amend controls. Defendant’s detailed 6 arguments regarding futility are better suited to resolution on a motion to dismiss and do not 7 persuade the Court that leave should be denied.” The Court thus GRANTS Plaintiffs motion. 8 The second amended complaint must be filed by July 26, 2022. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: 7/20/2022 11 Ataipurnl 8 MbL □□□

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

12 United States District Judge

15 16

= 17

Z 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 07 > Defendant asks the Court to take judicial notice of two exhibits in support of its opposition to Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. See Dkt. No. 101-2. The Court 28 does not find these documents necessary to analyze whether leave should be granted and accordingly denies the request.