Wave Neuroscience, Inc. v. PeakLogic, Inc.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WAVE NEUROSCIENCE, INC., Case No. 21-cv-01330-BAS-AGS
Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
v. LEAVE TO FILE SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT
PEAKLOGIC, INC, et al.,
Defendants. (ECF No. 16)
17 Before the Court is Plaintiff Neuroscience, Inc.’s Motion for Leave to File its Second 18 Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 16.) “In general, a court should liberally allow a party to 19 amend its pleading.” Sonoma Cty. Ass’n of Retired Emps. v. Sonoma Cty., 708 F.3d 1109, 20 1117 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)); see also Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health 21 Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001) (“A district court ‘shall grant leave to amend 22 freely when justice so requires.’” (quoting Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 23 2000) (en banc))). Further, a party may amend its pleading without a court order where 24 the opposing party consents in writing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 25 Considering the broad policy favoring amendments…