Chavez v. Shimmick Construction Company, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Michael M. Anello (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Richard Chavez moved ex parte for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint to add two new defendants. The court granted the motion, finding no bad faith, undue delay, or prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2).
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting Plaintiff's ex parte motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's ex parte motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the 'freely give leave' standard of Rule 15(a)(2) and the Ninth Circuit's policy of 'extreme liberality.' The court explicitly addressed the relevant factors (bad faith, delay, prejudice) and found them absent, particularly noting the early stage of litigation (no answer filed). The decision follows directly from the cited authorities and the procedural posture. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and applies the well-established Ninth Circuit standard for Rule 15(a)(2) motions. It correctly identifies the relevant factors and applies them to the specific facts (early stage, no answer, no prejudice shown). It does not need to analyze futility in depth because the motion is to add parties, not to change the legal claims, and the court found no other grounds for denial.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 RICHARD CHAVEZ, Case No. 20-cv-594-MMA (AHG)
10 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 11 v. EX PARTE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A THIRD COMPLAINT 12 SHIMMICK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., 13 [Doc. No. 8] Defendant. 14 15 16 On March 27, 2020, Richard Chavez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against 17 Shimmick Construction Company, Inc. (“Defendant”). See Doc. No. 1. On April 1, 18 2020, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. See Doc. No. 4. On April 2, 2020, 19 Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, which 20 the Court granted. See Doc. Nos. 5, 6. On April 15, 2020, Plaintiff filed the present ex 21 parte motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint. See Doc. No. 8. Defendant 22 has not yet filed an answer. See id. at 2. 23 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 governs amendment of pleadings. If a party 24 has already amended a pleading as a matter of course, the party seeking further 25 amendment “may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or 26 the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. 27 Civ. P. 15(a)(2). This rule reflects an underlying policy that disputes should be 28 determined on their merits and not on the technicalities of pleading rules. See Nunes v. 1 ||Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805, 808 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 2 ||(9th Cir. 2000)). Accordingly, the Court must be generous in granting leave to amend. 3 ||See Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990) 4 ||(noting leave to amend should be granted with “extreme liberality”); Ascon Props., Inc. v. 5 ||Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989) (first citing DCD Programs, Ltd. v. 6 Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987); and then citing United States v. Webb, 655 7 ||F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981)). 8 However, courts may consider several factors in deciding whether to grant a 9 ||motion for leave to amend: “(1) bad faith; (2) undue delay; (3) prejudice to the opposing 10 ||party; (4) futility of amendment; and (5) whether the plaintiff has previously amended his 11 ||complaint.” Nunes, 375 F.3d at 808 (citing Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 12 ||1995)); see also Ascon Props., 866 F.2d at 1160 (citing DCD Programs, Ltd., 833 F.2d at 13 ||186); McGlinchy v. Shell Chem. Co., 845 F.2d 802, 809 (9th Cir. 1988). The test of 14 ||futility “is identical to the one used when considering the sufficiency of a pleading 15 ||challenged under Rule 12(b)(6).” Miller v. Rykoff-Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th 16 ||Cir. 1988) (citing 3 J. Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice j 15.08[4] (2d ed. 1974)). 17 Plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint “to add Nova Construction Group, Inc. and 18 ||Nova Shimmick, A Joint Venture as defendants” to the action. Doc. No. 8 at 2. 19 Although Plaintiff has already amended his complaint twice, the Court does not find 20 ||evidence of bad faith, undue delay, or prejudice to Defendant. Given that plaintiff only 21 ||recently filed this action and Defendant has not filed an answer, the Court finds that it 22 ||must be generous in giving Plaintiff leave to file an amended pleading. 23 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's ex parte motion for leave to file a 24 ||Third Amended Complaint. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to file Plaintiff's 25 ||Third Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 8-1) as a separate docket entry. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 28 ||Dated: April 16, 2020 WMithec LIU - l hinktlr HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO , United States District Judge