Ayla, LLC v. Alya Skin Pty. Ltd.

Background

Ayla, LLC moved for permission to file a second amended complaint. It sought to add Macek Consulting LLC and Jason Macek, doing business as Dollar Fulfillment, as defendants. It also sought to add claims for trademark counterfeiting under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a) and trademark cybersquatting under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d).

Reasoning

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) generally directs courts to allow amendments when justice requires. Courts consider bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, whether the amendment would be futile, and whether the party has previously amended its pleading. The court gives the greatest weight to prejudice.

The court found that Alya Skin Pty. Ltd. had not shown prejudice or made a strong showing under any of the other relevant factors. The court therefore applied the presumption favoring amendment. It concluded that Alya Skin’s detailed arguments about whether the proposed amendments would be legally futile were better addressed through a motion to dismiss and did not justify denying permission to amend.

Alya Skin also asked the court to take judicial notice of two exhibits submitted with its opposition. The court found the documents unnecessary to decide whether amendment should be allowed and denied that request.

Ruling

The court granted Ayla, LLC’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. It ordered Ayla, LLC to file the complaint by July 26, 2022. The court also denied Alya Skin Pty. Ltd.’s request for judicial notice. The order did not decide whether the proposed trademark claims would ultimately succeed or whether they would survive a motion to dismiss.