Weyl v. DEPCOM Power Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court considered a joint stipulation by the plaintiff and defendant to amend the complaint and to use a specific method of service. The court granted leave to file a First Amended Complaint but denied the request to use Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt for service, ordering electronic service instead.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting in part the Joint Motion to Amend the Complaint“the Court GRANTS IN PART the Joint Motion to the extent it seeks leave for Plaintiff to file a FAC.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the liberal amendment standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), noting the parties' joint consent which further supports granting the motion. |
Denying the portion of the Joint Motion regarding service via Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt (NAR)“the Court declines to approve the parties’ Joint Motion insofar as it pertains to service of the FAC via Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt (“NAR”), as well as the stipulated deadlines for DEPCOM to return the executed NAR and respond to Complaint.” | agree with court The court exercised its discretion to manage the docket, finding that the stipulated NAR service method was unnecessary given the availability of electronic service through the docket. This is a standard case management decision. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly cites the relevant Ninth Circuit precedent and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to support the decision to grant leave to amend. The denial of the specific service method is a reasonable exercise of case management authority, as electronic service is standard and efficient in federal district courts. The reasoning is concise and directly addresses the components of the joint motion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GREGORY WEYL, Case No. 25-cv-00741-BAS-DEB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 13 v. PARTIES’ JOINT MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT 14 DEPCOM POWER, INC., et al., (ECF No. 12) 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Gregory Weyl and Defendant1 DEPCOM 20 Power Inc.’s (“DEPCOM”) Joint Stipulation to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). 21 (ECF No. 12.) “In general, a court should liberally allow a party to amend its pleading.” 22 Sonoma Cty. Ass’n of Retired Emps. v. Sonoma Cty., 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013) 23 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)); see also Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 24 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001) (“A district court shall grant leave to amend freely when justice 25 so requires.’”). Further, a party may amend its pleading without a court order where the 26 opposing party consents in writing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 27 1 The Court notes that DEPCOM is the sole named Defendant, whereas the remaining Defendants 28 1 Here, considering (i) the broad policy favoring amendments to pleadings and (11) the 2 || parties’ joint motion, which indicates DEPCOM’s consent to the amendment, the Court 3 || GRANTS IN PART the Joint Motion to the extent it seeks leave for Plaintiff to file a FAC. 4 However, the Court declines to approve the parties’ Joint Motion insofar as it 5 || pertains to service of the FAC via Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt (“NAR”), as 6 || well as the stipulated deadlines for DEPCOM to return the executed NAR and respond to 7 Complaint. (ECF No. 12 at 2:7—-13.) In light of the fact that the parties have access to 8 ||electronic service through the docket in this matter, the Court finds service via NAR is 9 |}unnecessary. Accordingly, Plaintiff shall file his FAC on or before July 25, 2025. 10 |} DEPCOM shall file a responsive pleading on or before August 8, 2025. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 ||DATED: July 16, 2025 (yatta Bahar te 14 H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ~_9_