`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`Brian Ledahl (CA SB No. 186579)
`Neil A. Rubin (CA SB No. 250761)
`Jacob Buczko (CA SB No. 269408)
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`12424 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90025
`Telephone: 310-826-7474
`Facsimile: 310-826-6991
`E-mail: bledahl@raklaw.com
`E-mail: nrubin@raklaw.com
`E-mail: jbuczko@raklaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Document Security Systems. Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff,
`
`Document Security Systems, Inc. ("DSS") respectfully seeks leave of the Court to
`
`file the attached Second Amended Complaint (Exhibit A).
`
`Paragraph J of the Court’s Initial Order and Case Assignment (Dkt. 13)
`
`describes that “even where a party has amended his Complaint once or a
`
`responsive pleading has been served, the Federal Rules provide that leave to amend
`
`
`
`
`
` 1
`
`
`UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`DOCUMENT SECURITY SYSTEMS,
`INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`CREE, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 2:17-cv-04263-JVS-JCG
`
`
`UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
`LEAVE TO FILE SECOND
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-04263-JVS-JCG Document 43 Filed 12/28/17 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:694
`
`
`
`should be ‘freely given when justice so requires.’ F.R.Civ.P., Rule 15(a). The
`
`Ninth Circuit requires that this policy favoring amendment be applied with
`
`‘extreme liberality.’ Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074,
`
`1079 (9th Cir. 1990).”
`
`The Court has previously granted DSS, by either Minute Order or
`
`Stipulation, leave to amend its respective complaints in related cases DSS v. Seoul
`
`Semiconductor Co. Ltd., et al (8:17-cv-00981, Dkt. 36); DSS v. Everlight
`
`Electronics Co., Ltd et al (2:17-cv-04273, Dkt. 47); DSS v. OSRAM Gmbh et al
`
`(2:17-cv-0518, Dkt. 44); and DSS v. Lite-On Inc. et al (2:17-cv-06050, Dkt. 35).
`
`Pursuant to those orders, DSS has filed amended complaints in each case. DSS
`
`seeks leave to file a similar amended pleading in this case. DSS has met and
`
`conferred with Defendant Cree, Inc. (“Cree”) and Cree has indicated it does not
`
`oppose this motion.
`
`
`
`DATED: December 29, 2017
`
`
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Brian Ledahl
`
`Brian Ledahl
`Neil A. Rubin
`Jacob Buczko
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`Document Security Systems, Inc.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
`
`In accordance with Local Rule 7.3, the above signatory attests that DSS met
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`and conferred with Cree, Inc. regarding the filing of this motion.
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-04263-JVS-JCG Document 43 Filed 12/28/17 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:695
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that on December 28, 2017, a true and correct copy of this
`
`document was served in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
`
`L.R. CV-5 on all known counsel of record by electronic service via the Court’s
`
`CM/EMF system.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Brian Ledahl
`Brian Ledahl
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
