Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Leatt Corp. v. Innovative Safety Technology

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


April 16, 2010

LEATT CORPORATION, A NEVADA CORPORATION; AND EXCEED HOLDINGS (PTY) LTD., A SOUTH AFRICAN COMPANY, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
INNOVATIVE SAFETY TECHNOLOGY, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; KEVIN HEATH ENTERPRISES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; KEVIN HEATH, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND E.V. TECHNOLOGY, A CHINESE BUSINESS ENTITY, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Irma E. Gonzalez, Chief Judge United States District Court

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [Doc. No. 45]

This is a case about alleged trade secret misappropriation. Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), filed on September 14, 2009, asserts three causes of action: (1) trade secret misappropriation, (2) unfair competition, and (3) tortious interference. Currently before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Supplement First Amended Complaint, which seeks to add a cause of action to enforce the South African Arbitration Award that Plaintiffs recently obtained. Defendants Kevin Heath, Kevin Heath Enterprises, Inc., and E.V. Technology filed a statement of non-opposition.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d) applies to claims that accrue after an initial complaint is filed. Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park, 159 F.3d 374, 382 (9th Cir. 1998). "'Rule 15(d) permits the filing of a supplemental pleading which introduces a cause of action not alleged in the original complaint and not in existence when the original complaint was filed.'" Id. (citation omitted). Supplemental claims should be allowed where they will "promote the economical and speedy disposition of the controversy." Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467, 473 (9th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted).

In the present case, the event giving rise to the Supplemental Complaint relates to the same facts as alleged in the FAC and it occurred after the filing of the FAC. Allowing Plaintiffs to supplement their complaint would also promote judicial economy and convenience, since it will avoid the need for Plaintiffs to file a separate action just to enforce the South African Arbitration Award.

For the foregoing reasons, and in light of Defendants' non-opposition, the Court GRANTS the motion to supplement and VACATES the hearing currently set for April 26, 2010. The Clerk of Court is directed to file Plaintiffs' Supplemental First Amended Complaint ("SFAC") and the accompanying Exhibits A through G, which are attached as Exhibit 1 to Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Supplement First Amended Complaint. [Doc. No. 45-1]. Pursuant to Rule 15(d), the Court also ORDERS that if Defendants wish to plead or otherwise respond to the SFAC, they must do so no later than 21 days after the filing of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20100416

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.