United States District Court, D. Nevada
JEROME W. DEWALD, Plaintiff,
BIOQUEST CORP., formerly known as CAFÉ SERENDIPITY HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant.
ORDER MOTION TO AMEND [ECF NO. 11]
FERENBACH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the Court is Plaintiff Jerome Dewald's Motion for Leave
to File Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 11). For the reasons
discussed below, Plaintiff's motion is granted.
original Complaint was filed on May 3, 2019. (ECF No. 1). The
original Complaint names a single Defendant-Café
Serendipity Holdings, Inc. (Id. at 1). On May 15 and
17, 2019, Plaintiff filed proof of service for Café
Serendipity Holdings, Inc. and its CEO. (ECF Nos. 5, 6). As
part of service, a copy of the summons and complaint was
mailed to the CFO of BioQuest Corp., FKA Café
Serendipity Holdings, Inc. (ECF No. 6 at 4). No. answer has
been filed to the original Complaint.
3, 2019, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. (ECF No.
10). The caption of the First Amended Complaint appears to
list two Defendants-Café Serendipity Holdings, Inc.
and BioQuest Corp. (Id. at 1). However, the body of
the First Amended Complaint makes it clear that
“Defendant Café Serendipity, on November 16,
2018, changed its name and its principal place of business to
BioQuest Corp.” (Id. at 2). No. answer has
been filed to the First Amended Complaint.
8, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a Second
Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 11). Plaintiff seeks to
“correct a technical error in the citation of
Defendant's name that makes it appear there are two
Defendants rather than one Defendant with two aliases.”
(Id. at 1). The proposed Second Amended Complaint is
identical to the First Amended Complaint except that the
caption lists as the Defendant, “Café
Serendipity Holdings, Inc., currently known as BioQuest
Corp.” (ECF No. 11-1). Defendant has not opposed the
motion to amend or otherwise appeared in the case.
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). “Five factors
are taken into account to assess the propriety of a motion
for leave to amend: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the
opposing party, futility of amendment, and whether the
plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.”
Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir.
Court finds grounds to grant Plaintiff leave to file a Second
Amended Complaint. Plaintiff seeks to clarify the
Defendant's identity. There is no apparent bad faith or
undue delay in the motion for leave to amend. The amendment
will not prejudice the Defendant.
it would be more correct and clear to list the Defendant as
“BioQuest Corp., formerly known as Café
Serendipity Holdings, Inc.” in the Second Amended
Complaint. That is how the Defendant appears on the Docket,
and it is how Plaintiff refers to Defendant in his pending
motion for default. (ECF No. 12). When filing the Second
Amended Complaint, Plaintiff must use “BioQuest Corp.,
formerly known as Café Serendipity Holdings,
Inc.” in the caption.
and for good cause shown, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's
Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (ECF No. 11) is
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has until July 8, 2019 to file
the Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff has until August 9,
2019 to serve Defendant with the Second Amended Complaint,
summons, and a copy of this Order. See Fed. R. Civ.
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant has until August 30, 2019 to
file an answer or other response, as ...