McGraw v. Pacifica Ashwood LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Michael M. Anello (author)
Analysis
The parties jointly moved for leave to file a First Amended Complaint (FAC) and to deem the defendant's existing answer as responsive to the FAC. The court granted the motion, directed the Clerk to file the FAC, and deemed the defendant's answer to the original complaint as its answer to the FAC.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the parties' joint motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint.“Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the parties’ joint motion.” | agree with court The court applied the 'good cause' standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). Because the motion was joint and the parties agreed to the amendment, the decision to grant leave is consistent with the rule and the record presented. |
Deeming Pacifica’s Answer to the original Complaint as its Answer to the First Amended Complaint.“Pursuant to the parties’ motion, Pacifica’s Answer to the original Complaint is deemed to be its Answer to the FAC.” | agree with court The court relied on the parties' stipulation and the precedent in KST Data, Inc. v. DXC Tech. Co., which holds that a new answer is not required if the amended complaint does not change the theory or scope of the case. The order implies the FAC did not change the theory or scope, making the deeming of the answer appropriate. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a routine procedural ruling based on a joint motion. It correctly cites the relevant Federal Rule and a recent Ninth Circuit case supporting the deeming of the answer. The reasoning is sufficient for the type of motion presented.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 |} RANDALL SCOTT MCGRAW, Case No. 20-cv-954-MMA (KSC) 10 Plants ORDER GRANTING JOINT 11 || Vv. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 12 || PACIFICA ASHWOOD LLC, FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 13 Defendant.| [Doc. No. 47] 14 15 16 Randall Scott McGraw (‘Plaintiff’) and Pacifica Ashwood LLC (‘‘Pacifica’’) 17 ||(collectively, “the parties”) jointly move for leave to allow Plaintiff to file a First 18 || Amended Complaint (“FAC”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). See 19 ||Doc. No. 47. Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the parties’ joint motion. 20 ||Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to file Plaintiff's FAC (Doc. No. 21 ||47-1 at 3-16) as a separate docket entry. Pursuant to the parties’ motion, Pacifica’s 22 Answer to the original Complaint is deemed to be its Answer to the FAC. See Doc. No. 23 ||47 at 2; see also KST Data, Inc. v. DXC Tech. Co., 980 F.3d 709, 715 (9th Cir. 2020) (“A 24 ||defendant is not required to file a new answer to an amended complaint when the 25 |\allegations in the amended complaint do not ‘change the theory or scope of the case.’’’) 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 ||Dated: December 10, 2020 a □□□ “at Ta high HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 28 United States District Judge