Armindo Guzman Jr. and Mahogany Guzman v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC and Does 1–50
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
Defendant Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC moved to file an amended answer to include affirmative defenses of statute of limitations, which Plaintiffs did not oppose. The Court granted the motion and ordered the Defendant to file the amended answer within three days.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Amend Answer Granted“Having considered Defendant’s motion and the remainder of the record, the Court GRANTS the motion. [Doc. No. 13.]” | agree with court The court correctly applied the 'extreme liberality' standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). The order recites that there is no indication of undue delay, bad faith, prejudice, or futility, and that this is the defendant's first motion to amend. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, these factors strongly favor granting leave to amend, particularly when the opposing party has not opposed the motion. The decision follows logically from the cited law and the recited record. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable rule (Rule 15(a)(2)), cites the controlling Ninth Circuit standard ('extreme liberality'), lists the relevant factors, and applies them to the specific facts (no delay, bad faith, prejudice, or futility; first amendment). The lack of opposition from Plaintiffs further supports the grant. The reasoning is concise but complete for this type of routine motion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 ARMINDO GUZMAN JR. and Case No.: 3:25-cv-2043-CAB-JAC MAHOGANY GUZMAN, 14 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO Plaintiffs, 15 AMEND v. 16 JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH [Doc. No. 13] 17 AMERICA, LLC and DOES 1–50, 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 Plaintiffs Armindo Guzman Jr. and Mahogany Guzman filed several claims against 22 Defendant Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC (“Defendant”) in California state court 23 related to a used 2020 Land Rover Range Rover Sport HSE they purchased. [Doc. No. 1- 24 3 at 7.] On August 8, 2025, Defendant removed the case to this Court, [Doc. No. 1], and 25 filed an answer, [Doc. No. 3.] Before the Court is Defendant’s motion to file an amended 26 answer to Plaintiffs’ complaint. [Doc. No. 13.] Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition to 27 this motion. 28 1 A “court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. 2 ||P. 15(a)(2). Courts apply this policy with “extreme liberality.” Eminence Cap., LLC v. 3 || Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003). Five factors are commonly used to 4 || assess the propriety of granting leave to amend: (1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice 5 || to the opposing party, (4) futility of amendment, and (5) whether the party has previously 6 ||amended the pleading. Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 373 (9th Cir. 1990); 7 ||Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). In conducting this five-factor analysis, the 8 Court must grant all inferences in favor of allowing amendment. Griggs v. Pace Am. Grp., 9 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999). 10 Defendant seeks to amend its answer to include an affirmative defense for statute of 11 || limitations under Code of Civil Procedure §§ 312, et seq., Code of Civil Procedure 12 || §§ 871.21, et seq., and Cal. Com. Code § 2725(2). [Doc. No. 13 at 2.] There is no 13 |/indication of undue delay, bad faith, prejudice, or futility in this amendment. This is 14 || Defendant’s first motion to file an amended pleading. 15 Having considered Defendant’s motion and the remainder of the record, the Court 16 || GRANTS the motion. [Doc. No. 13.] Defendant shall file the amended answer within 17 || three days of the date of this Order. 18 It is SO ORDERED. 19 || Dated: August 7, 2026 € 20 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28