Meagan Garland, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Duane Morris LLP, a business entity; Tax Accounting Group, a business entity, and Does 1 through 200, inclusive
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court considered Plaintiff Meagan Garland's unopposed motion to file a Second Amended Complaint. The court granted the motion, allowing the filing of the Second Amended Complaint while keeping the Defendant's existing Answer as the operative responsive pleading.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Plaintiff's unopposed motion to amend the First Amended Complaint is granted.“For good cause shown, the Court ORDERS: (1) Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED;” | agree with court The decision follows from the law and the record recited in the order. The motion was unopposed, and the court applied the standard that leave to amend should be freely given when justice so requires, citing the Ninth Circuit's directive to apply this policy with extreme liberality. Granting leave in an unopposed context where no specific prejudice or futility is alleged is the standard and correct application of Rule 15(a)(2). |
Plaintiff is granted leave to file the Second Amended Complaint.“(2) Plaintiff is granted leave to file the Second Amended Complaint, which is attached as Exhibit 1 to the Motion;” | agree with court This is the operative relief requested in the motion. Since the motion was granted, granting leave to file the specific document attached as an exhibit is the logical and necessary consequence. |
Defendant Duane Morris, LLP’s Answer remains the operative responsive pleading, and the Defendant is not required to refile or amend it.“(3) Defendant Duane Morris, LLP’s Answer, [Doc. No. 50], shall remain the operative responsive pleading. Defendant is not required to refile or amend its Answer.” | agree with court The court's decision to leave the existing Answer as the operative pleading is a procedural management decision. While Rule 15(a)(3) generally requires a party to respond to an amended pleading, courts have discretion to waive this requirement or allow the existing answer to stand if the amendments do not introduce new claims or parties that would necessitate a new response, or if the parties do not object. Given the motion was unopposed, the court's choice to streamline the process by keeping the existing answer is a defensible exercise of discretion, though the order does not explicitly state the reason for this specific procedural choice. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a standard, short procedural ruling on an unopposed motion. It correctly cites the governing rule (Rule 15(a)(2)) and the controlling Ninth Circuit precedent (Owens) regarding the liberal standard for amendment. The reasoning is sufficient for the type of motion presented. The decision to keep the existing Answer as the operative pleading is a procedural choice that, while not explicitly justified in the text, is a common and acceptable practice in unopposed amendment scenarios to avoid unnecessary delay, and does not render the order legally unsound.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MEAGAN GARLAND, on behalf of Case No.: 3:24-cv-01783-CAB-DEB herself and all others similarly situated, 12 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO Plaintiff, 13 FILE SECOND AMENDED v. COMPLAINT 14 DUANE MORRIS LLP, a business entity; 15 TAX ACCOUNTING GROUP, a business [Doc. No. 51] 16 entity, and DOES 1 through 200, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Meagan Garland’s unopposed motion to amend 21 her First Amended Complaint. [Doc. No. 51 (the “Motion”).] Federal Rule of Civil 22 Procedure 15 requires courts to “freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” 23 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). This policy is “to be applied with extreme liberality.” Owens v. 24 Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). For 25 good cause shown, the Court ORDERS: 26 (1) Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED; 27 (2) Plaintiff is granted leave to file the Second Amended Complaint, which is 28 attached as Exhibit 1 to the Motion; and l (3) Defendant Duane Morris, LLP’s Answer, [Doc. No. 50], shall remain the 2 operative responsive pleading. Defendant is not required to refile or amend 3 its Answer. 4 It is SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: May 4, 2026 € 6 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28