Jason Anderson, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. 7-Eleven, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Anthony J. Battaglia (author)
Analysis
The court considered a motion by the plaintiff for leave to file a first amended complaint to adjust the class period, make minor clarifications, and remove two causes of action lacking a private right of action. The court granted the motion and directed the plaintiff to file the amended complaint by June 26, 2026.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for leave to file first amended complaint granted“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion.” | agree with court The court applied the correct legal standard for Rule 15(a)(2) motions, citing the five factors from Johnson v. Buckley and the presumption in favor of amendment from Eminence Capital. The record indicates the defendant did not oppose the motion, the amendment was the first request, and the changes were limited to streamlining the litigation and removing futile claims. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, the absence of opposition and the limited nature of the amendment strongly support granting leave. |
Motion hearing vacated“The corresponding motion hearing is VACATED.” | agree with court Vacating a hearing is a procedural matter within the court's discretion, particularly when the motion is granted on the papers and the opposing party does not oppose. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable legal standard for a motion to amend under Rule 15(a)(2) and cites the controlling Ninth Circuit precedent regarding the factors to be considered and the burden of proof. The court's application of these factors to the specific facts (first amendment, non-opposition, limited purpose, early discovery) is logical and consistent with the law. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a routine, unopposed motion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JASON ANDERSON, individually, and Case No.: 25-cv-03577-AJB-DEB on behalf of other members of the general 12 public similarly situated, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 13 LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED Plaintiff, COMPLAINT 14 v. 15 (Doc. No. 28) 7-Eleven, Inc., 16 Defendant. 17 19 Before the Court is a motion seeking leave to file a first amended complaint filed by 20 Plaintiff Jason Anderson (“Plaintiff”). (Doc. No. 28.) The proposed first amended 21 complaint will adjust the class period in light of the approved settlement in a different 22 wage-and-hour class action against Defendant 7-Eleven (“Defendant”), makes “minor 23 clarifications,” and removes two causes of action that do not have a private right of action. 24 (Id.) Defendant timely filed a notice of non-opposition to the motion. (Doc. No. 30.) 25 Pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “a party may amend its 26 pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave” after the time 27 for amendment as a matter of course has expired. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “The court 28 should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Id. “Five factors are taken into account | |} to assess the propriety of a motion for leave to amend: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to 2 ||the opposing party, futility of amendment, and whether the plaintiff has previously 3 |}amended the complaint.” Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004). “Not 4 of the factors merit equal weight[; rather,] it is the consideration of prejudice to the 5 || opposing party that carries the greatest weight.” Eminence Cap., LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 6 || F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). “Absent prejudice, or a strong showing” of the remaining 7 |\factors, there exists a “presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to 8 ||amend.” /d. The party opposing the amendment bears the burden of showing why leave 9 ||should be denied, including the burden of establishing prejudice. DCD Programs, Ltd. v. 10 || Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987). 11 The Court finds that all factors weigh in favor of permitting amendment. 12 || Specifically, this is the first request to amend the complaint, amendment is for a limited 13 || purpose that will streamline litigation and remove causes of action that would have been 14 || futile, Defendant does not oppose the motion, and the litigation is in early stages of 15 || discovery. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion. The corresponding motion 16 hearing is VACATED. Plaintiff is directed to file the First Amended Complaint no later 17 June 26, 2026. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 ||Dated: June 23, 2026 © 20 Hon. Anthony J. attaglia 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28