Hall v. Marriott International, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Todd Hall moved for leave to amend his First Amended Class Action Complaint to add three additional plaintiffs and make minor changes, a motion to which Defendant Marriott International, Inc. did not oppose. The court granted the motion and ordered the plaintiff to file the Second Amended Class Action Complaint within three days.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint granted“In light of the extremely liberal policy in favor of amendment and Defendant’s non-opposition to Plaintiff’s request, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion.” | agree with court The decision follows from the law and the record recited in the order. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), leave to amend should be freely given when justice so requires. The order cites the standard factors for denying leave (undue delay, bad faith, futility, etc.) and notes the defendant's non-opposition. Given the liberal policy favoring amendment and the lack of opposition or stated prejudice, granting the motion is the legally correct outcome. |
Hearing date vacated“The Court finds this matter appropriately decided without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1) and thus VACATES the hearing set for January 21, 2021.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the local rule allowing decisions without oral argument when appropriate. Since the motion was unopposed and straightforward, vacating the hearing was a proper procedural step. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the governing rule (Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2)) and the relevant case law standards for granting or denying leave to amend. It notes the defendant's non-opposition and the liberal policy favoring amendment. The reasoning is sufficient to support the grant of the motion. There are no significant gaps or errors in the application of the law.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TODD HALL, Case No.: 19-CV-1715 JLS (AHG)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER VACATING HEARING 13 v. DATE ON AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED 14 MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, Inc., a MOTION FOR LEAVE TO Delaware Corporation, 15 AMEND COMPLAINT Defendant. 16 (ECF No. 46) 17 18 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Todd Hall’s Motion for Leave to Amend 19 Complaint (“Mot.,” ECF No. 46), as well as Defendant Marriott International, Inc.’s Non 20 Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion (“Non-Opp’n,” ECF No. 52). The Court finds this matter 21 appropriately decided without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1) and 22 thus VACATES the hearing set for January 21, 2021. Having considered the Parties’ 23 briefing and the law, the Court GRANTS the Motion. 24 BACKGROUND 25 On September 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed this putative consumer class action alleging 26 that Defendant engages in false and deceptive advertising in the way Defendant represents 27 the prices consumers must pay for Defendant’s hotel rooms, services, and amenities. See 28 generally ECF No. 1. On November 1, 2019, Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s initial 1 complaint. See ECF No. 11. In response, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Class Action 2 Complaint (“FAC”) on November 22, 2019. See ECF No. 15. On January 10, 2020, 3 Defendant moved to dismiss the FAC. See ECF No. 18. On August 14, 2020, the Court 4 denied Defendant’s motion. See ECF No. 31. Defendant answered the FAC on August 5 28, 2020. See ECF No. 32. 6 On December 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion, seeking leave to amend the 7 FAC to “add[] three additional plaintiffs and proposed class representatives to this action 8 and make[] additional minor changes.” ECF No. 46-1 (“Mot. Mem.”) at 1. On January 7, 9 2021, Defendant filed its Non-Opposition. See Non-Opp’n. 10 ANALYSIS 11 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), a plaintiff may amend his complaint 12 once as a matter of course within specified time limits. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). “In all 13 other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent 14 or the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. 15 Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 16 Courts generally grant leave to amend absent a showing of “undue delay, bad faith 17 or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by 18 amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of 19 allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of amendment.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 20 182 (1962). “Rule 15(a) ‘is to be applied with extreme liberality,’ and whether to permit 21 amendment is a decision ‘entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court.’” EFG Bank 22 AG, Cayman Branch v. Transam. Life Ins. Co., No. 216CV08104CASGJSX, 2019 WL 23 5784739, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2019) (quoting Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. 24 Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990); Jordan v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 669 F.2d 1311, 25 1324 (9th Cir. 1982)). 26 Plaintiff seeks leave to amend the FAC to add three additional named Plaintiffs, as 27 well as facts and allegations relevant to those additional named Plaintiffs. See generally 28 Mot. Mem.; see also ECF No. 46-4 (redline of proposed Second Amended Class Action 1 ||Complaint against the FAC). In light of the extremely liberal policy in favor of amendment 2 ||and Defendant’s non-opposition to Plaintiff’s request, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s 3 || Motion. 4 CONCLUSION 5 In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion (ECF No. 46). 6 || Plaintiff SHALL FILE the Second Amended Class Action Complaint, previously filed at 7 || ECF No. 46-3, within three (3) days of the electronic docketing of this Order. Thereafter, 8 || the Clerk SHALL UPDATE the caption and docket accordingly. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: January 8, 2021 (ee ul on. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28