John Moffitt v. County of San Diego, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff John Moffitt moved for leave to amend his complaint to add NaphCare as a defendant based on newly discovered information regarding the employment status of a nurse involved in his care. The court granted the motion, noting the lack of opposition from the existing defendants and the absence of undue delay or bad faith.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for leave to amend complaint to add NaphCare as a defendant granted“the Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint to add NaphCare as a defendant.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for leave to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). The Ninth Circuit requires that leave be granted with 'extreme liberality' unless there is undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies, undue prejudice to the opposing party, or futility of amendment. The order notes that no defendant opposed the motion and there was no indication of undue delay or bad faith. While the court did not explicitly address futility or prejudice, the lack of opposition and the specific factual basis for the amendment (correcting the identity of the employer) make the grant of leave appropriate and consistent with the liberal standard. The deadline set for filing the amended complaint is reasonable. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and cites the appropriate Ninth Circuit precedent for the standard of review for motions to amend. It identifies the relevant factors and applies them to the specific facts (no opposition, no delay/bad faith). It is a standard, routine order that correctly applies the law.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN MOFFITT, Case No.: 3:24-cv-1445-CAB-DDL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 13 v. LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT 14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., [Doc. No. 68] 15 Defendants. 16 17 Before the Court is Plaintiff John Moffitt’s motion for leave to amend the complaint 18 to add NaphCare as a defendant. [Doc. No. 68 at 1.] Plaintiff states that newly discovered 19 information shows that “a nurse involved in Plaintiff’s care while he was in jail was 20 employed by NaphCare, not the County of San Diego as originally believed.” [Id. at 1–2.] 21 Defendant County of San Diego does not oppose the motion. [Doc. No. 70.] 22 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1) authorizes a party to amend its pleading 23 once as a matter of course. “In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with 24 the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The 25 Ninth Circuit instructs that leave to amend is to be granted with “extreme liberality.” See 26 Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990). Courts 27 generally consider several factors, including undue delay, bad faith, futility of amendment, 28 1 prejudice to the opposing party. See Hurn v. Ret. Fund Tr. of Plumbing, Heating & 2 || Piping Indus. of S. California, 648 F.2d 1252, 1254 (9th Cir. 1981). 3 Because no Defendant has filed any opposition, and because there is no indication 4 || of any undue delay or bad faith conduct by Plaintiff, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to 5 |}amend the complaint to add NaphCare as a defendant. Plaintiff shall file any amended 6 || complaint by April 20, 2026 and include a copy which shows how the amended complaint 7 || differs from the previous complaint. See CivLR 15.1(b). 8 It is SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: April 13, 2026 □ Z 10 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28