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 Fifth Amended Complaint to correct factual details regarding a crane barge and his job title. The court granted the motion, noting that the defendants did not oppose the amendment and that no factors such as bad faith, undue delay, or prejudice were present.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Plaintiff's ex parte motion for leave to file a Fifth Amended Complaint is granted.“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's ex parte motion for leave to file a Fifth Amended Complaint.” | agree with court The court applied the correct standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), which requires that leave to amend be freely given when justice so requires. The court correctly identified the relevant factors (bad faith, undue delay, prejudice, futility, prior amendments) and found that the absence of opposition from the defendants and the lack of evidence for the negative factors supported granting the motion. The decision follows directly from the law and the record recited in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the governing rule (Rule 15(a)(2)) and the relevant Ninth Circuit precedent regarding the liberal standard for granting leave to amend. It properly applies the factors test (bad faith, delay, prejudice, futility, prior amendments) to the specific facts (defendants do not oppose, no evidence of negative factors). The reasoning is complete and directly supports the result.
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 FIFTH AMENDED 12 SHIMMICK CONSTRUCTION COMPLAINT COMPANY, INC., et al., 13 Defendants. [Doc. No. 24] 14 15 16 Richard Chavez (“Plaintiff”) moves ex parte for leave to file a Fifth Amended 17 Complaint. See Doc. No. 24. Plaintiff’s counsel declares that he spoke with Defendants’ 18 counsel before filing the instant motion and that Defendants’ counsel do not oppose the 19 motion. See Easley Decl., Doc. No 24-2 ¶¶ 2. 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 governs amendment of pleadings. If a party 21 has already amended a pleading as a matter of course, the party seeking further 22 amendment “may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or 23 the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. 24 Civ. P. 15(a)(2). This rule reflects an underlying policy that disputes should be 25 determined on their merits and not on the technicalities of pleading rules. See Nunes v. 26 Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805, 808 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 27 (9th Cir. 2000)). Accordingly, the Court must be generous in granting leave to amend. 28 See Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990) 1 ||(noting leave to amend should be granted with “extreme liberality”); Ascon Props., Inc. v. 2 ||Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989) (first citing DCD Programs, Ltd. v. 3 Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987); and then citing United States v. Webb, 655 4 ||F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981)). 5 However, courts may consider several factors in deciding whether to grant a 6 ||motion for leave to amend: “(1) bad faith; (2) undue delay; (3) prejudice to the opposing 7 ||party; (4) futility of amendment; and (5) whether the plaintiff has previously amended his 8 ||}complaint.” Nunes, 375 F.3d at 808 (citing Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 9 ||1995)); see also Ascon Props., 866 F.2d at 1160 (citing DCD Programs, Ltd., 833 F.2d at 10 ||186); McGlinchy v. Shell Chem. Co., 845 F.2d 802, 809 (9th Cir. 1988). The test of 11 ||futility “is identical to the one used when considering the sufficiency of a pleading 12 ||challenged under Rule 12(b)(6).” Miller v. Rykoff-Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th 13 ||Cir. 1988) (citing 3 J. Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice 4 15.08[4] (2d ed. 1974)). 14 Plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint to identify a crane barge and correct 15 ||Plaintiff’s job title. See Doc. No. 24 at 2. Although Plaintiff has already amended his 16 ||complaint four times, the Court does not find evidence of bad faith, undue delay, or 17 ||prejudice to Defendants. Given that Defendants do not oppose the motion, see Easley 18 ||Decl., Doc. No 24-2 4¥ 2, the Court finds that it must be generous in giving Plaintiff 19 ||leave to file another amended pleading. 20 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's ex parte motion for leave to file a 21 ||Fifth Amended Complaint. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to file Plaintiff's 22 ||Fifth Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 24-1) as a separate docket entry. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 ||Dated: June 2, 2020 “ Miku MM l le HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 26 United States District Judge 27 28