Emmett Enriques v. Only What You Need, Inc.
2:24-cv-08969
| C.D. Cal. | Jul 15, 2025Background
- Emmett Enriques filed a putative class action in state court against Only What You Need, Inc. and others, alleging mislabeling of five ready-to-drink protein shakes.
- Defendants removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.
- During discovery, it was revealed that Enriques had not purchased four of the five products named in the complaint, but did purchase an additional sixth shake not originally listed.
- Enriques sought to amend the complaint to add the sixth shake and clarify his purchases; Defendants opposed, citing undue delay and prejudice from costs incurred related to shakes not purchased.
- The Court previously issued a tentative ruling granting leave to amend; after supplemental briefing, it reconsidered arguments about standing, futility, and costs.
- The Court ultimately granted leave to amend, declining to impose costs on Enriques at this stage but allowing future motions for costs if claims are later dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Leave to amend complaint | Amendment proper; justice requires amendment | Delay and prior pleading lack diligence; causes undue prejudice | Granted leave to amend |
| Standing re: products not purchased | Similarity is for class certification; can allege | Standing lacks per TransUnion; must have purchased each product | Not futile; will address at later stage |
| Imposing costs for prior discovery | Amendment did not cause costs; costs not warranted | Defendants entitled to recoup costs for unpurchased products | No costs imposed at this stage |
| Timing of challenge to pleadings | Validity should await later briefing | Futile amendment should block leave immediately | Challenges deferred until after amendment is filed |
Key Cases Cited
- Wheeler v. City of Santa Clara, 894 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2018) (leave to amend may be denied only if amendment is futile)
- DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183 (9th Cir. 1987) (leave to amend should be granted unless it's beyond doubt claim will fail)
- Lockman Found. v. Evangelical All. Mission, 930 F.2d 764 (9th Cir. 1991) (reasons for denying leave include undue delay, prejudice, futility)
- Gen. Signal Corp. v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., 66 F.3d 1500 (9th Cir. 1995) (costs may be imposed as condition of granting amendment)
- Int'l Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Republic Airlines, 761 F.2d 1386 (9th Cir. 1985) (fees/costs may not be reasonable when justice requires amendment)