Modular Management Group, Inc. v. Adamo Construction, Inc., et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Modular Management Group, Inc. moved ex parte for leave to file a First Amended Complaint to add five defendants identified during discovery. The court granted the motion, noting the absence of opposition and the requirement to freely grant leave under Rule 15(a)(2).
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting Plaintiff's ex parte motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint“Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 41.)” | agree with court The court applied the correct standard from the Ninth Circuit, which is to freely grant leave to amend unless there is prejudice, bad faith, undue delay, or futility. The order recites that the new defendants were discovered in discovery (justifying the timing) and that the defendants did not timely oppose the motion (suggesting no prejudice or bad faith). The decision follows logically from the cited authority and the recited facts. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the governing rule (FRCP 15(a)(2)) and the applicable Ninth Circuit standard. It addresses the key factors for granting leave: the reason for the amendment (discovery of new parties) and the lack of opposition. The reasoning is sufficient for a routine motion for leave to amend.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MODULAR MANAGEMENT GROUP, Case No. 25-cv-01419-BAS-SBC INC. 12 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ Plaintiff, 13 EX PARTE MOTION FOR LEAVE v. TO FILE FIRST AMENDED 14 COMPLAINT (ECF No. 41) 15 ADAMO CONSTRUCTION, INC., et. al, 16 Defendants. 17 18 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), the parties may amend their 19 pleadings with either the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. Rule 20 15(a)(2) further provides that “the court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” 21 Generally, leave to amend should be granted in the absence of prejudice, bad faith, undue 22 delay, or futility. See AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 23 (9th Cir. 2006). 24 Here, Plaintiff Modular Management Group, Inc. moved ex parte for leave to file a 25 First Amended Complaint (“Motion”). (ECF No. 41.) More specifically, Plaintiff seeks 26 ex parte leave to amend the complaint to add five additional defendants revealed 27 throughout discovery on May 5, 2026. (ECF No. 41-1 at 2:3-7.) Plaintiff would not have 28 known about the additional defendants prior to discovery. (See id. at 2:11-13.) In addition, 1 ||Defendants Adamo Construction, Inc. and Joshua Godknecht did not move to timely 2 || oppose Plaintiff's Motion by fourteen days prior to the noticed hearing date of June 5, 2026 3 || (id. at 1). See CivLR 7.1.e.2. 4 Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a first amended 5 ||complaint. (ECF No. 41.) Plaintiff may file a first amended complaint on June 9, 2026. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 ~ 8 || DATED: May 26, 2026 yatta Bihar 9 H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28