Legal Opinion
Saes Getters S.P.A. v. Aeronex, Inc.
District Court, S.D. California
Decided August 15, 2002No. CIV.02CV612-B LSPPublishedCited by 90 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
BREWSTER, Senior District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is Defendant Aero-nex’s Motion for Leave to Amend First Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims (“Motion” or “Motion for Leave to Amend”). The parties came for a hearing on Defendants Motion on August 12, 2002, at 10:30 a.m. Having carefully considered the parties’ arguments as presented in their papers 1 and at the hearing, the Court grants Defendant’s Motion for the reasons given below.
II. BACKGROUND
This patent case is still in the earliest stages of…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Wilton v. Seven Falls Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Dcd Programs, Ltd. v. Michael W. Leighton, Hill, Farrer & BurrillCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
- Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio International Interlink, Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio International InterlinkCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by90 opinions
- Stearns v. Select Comfort Retail Corp.District Court, N.D. California · 2010
- Cambridge Electronics Corp. v. MGA Electronics, Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2004
- Fresno Unified School District v. K.U.District Court, E.D. California · 2013
- No Cost Conference, Inc. v. Windstream Communications, Inc.District Court, S.D. California · 2013
- Roach v. LeeDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2005
85 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.