Hipschman v. County of San Diego
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Anthony J. Battaglia (author)
Analysis
Plaintiffs moved for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint to add two defendants based on discovery findings, and Defendants did not oppose the motion. The Court granted the motion and directed the Clerk to file the proposed complaint.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint is granted.“the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a SAC.” | agree with court The decision follows from the law and the record recited in the order. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), leave to amend should be freely given when justice so requires. The Ninth Circuit has established a presumption in favor of granting leave to amend absent prejudice or a strong showing of other negative factors. Because the defendants filed a statement of non-opposition and there was no showing of futility or prejudice, the court's decision to grant the motion is legally sound. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the standard for leave to amend under Rule 15(a)(2) and cites the controlling Ninth Circuit precedent (Eminence Capital) regarding the presumption in favor of amendment. The court notes the lack of opposition and the absence of prejudice or futility, which are the key factors in this analysis. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for an unopposed motion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CAROLINA HIPSCHMAN, an Case No.: 22-cv-00903-AJB-BLM individual; et al., 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 13 v. UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED 14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, a public COMPLAINT 15 entity; et al., (Doc. No. 65) 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 20 21 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint 22 (“SAC”) to include as additional defendants, Tin Le and Maria Araiza, to their first cause 23 of action for unwarranted seizure of their child, after discovery revealed their involvement 24 therein. (Doc. No. 65-1 at 5.) Defendants filed a statement of non-opposition to Plaintiffs’ 25 motion. (Doc. No. 70.) The Court finds the matter suitable for determination on the papers 26 and without oral argument. The motion hearing previously scheduled is hereby 27 VACATED. 28 1 There being no opposition to Plaintiffs’ filing of a SAC as provided in Doc. No. 65-3 2 ||and no showing that the amendment would be futile or prejudice Defendants, the Court 3 GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a SAC. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (courts 4 ||should freely grant leave to amend “when justice so requires”); Eminence Capital, LLC v. 5 || Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Absent prejudice, or a strong □□□□□□□□ 6 || of the remaining factors, there exists a ‘presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting 7 || leave to amend.’” 8 The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to vacate the October 17, 2024 hearing and file 9 || Doc. No. 65-3 as the Second Amended Complaint. Defendants’ Answer to the SAC must 10 filed no later than July 1, 2024. 1] IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: June 21, 2024 © ¢ 13 Hon. Anthony J. attaglia 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28