Gruder v. Crisp Marketing, LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Roger T. Benitez (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Robert Gruder moved for leave to file a First Amended Complaint to add a new defendant, Boom.ai, based on discovery findings. The court granted the unopposed motion, finding no bad faith, undue delay, prejudice, or futility.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint granted“Accordingly, the Motion is granted.” | abuse of discretion | agree with court The court correctly applied the four-factor test from Serra v. Lappin to determine that the motion to amend should be granted. The order explicitly states that the motion was not made in bad faith, would not cause undue delay, would not prejudice the opposing party, and would not be futile. Given that the motion was unopposed and the court found no negative factors, granting leave is consistent with the 'extreme liberality' standard cited in Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the legal standard for amending a complaint under Rule 15(a)(2) and the Ninth Circuit's specific factors for evaluating such motions (Serra). The court applies these factors to the specific facts (unopposed motion, discovery-based addition of a party) and reaches a logical conclusion. There are no significant gaps in the reasoning for a routine, unopposed motion of this nature.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ROBERT GRUDER, an individual, Case No.: 3:20-cv-00796-BEN-AHG 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED 12 v. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 13 AMENDED COMPLAINT CRISP MARKETING, LLC, 14 Defendant. [ECF No. 17] 15 16 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Robert Gruder’s (“Plaintiff”) 17 Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint. ECF No. 17. Defendant Crisp 18 Marketing, LLC (“Crisp”) did not file a response. The Motion is now ripe for 19 determination. 20 I. LEGAL STANDARD 21 Once a responsive pleading is filed, a plaintiff can amend a complaint “only with 22 the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “The 23 court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Id.; see also Morongo Band of 24 Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir.1990) (stating that leave to amend 25 is to be granted with “extreme liberality”). “The power to grant leave to amend, 26 however, is entrusted to the discretion of the district court, which determines the 27 propriety of a motion to amend by ascertaining the presence of any of four factors: bad 28 faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, and/or futility.” Serra v. Lappin, 600 1 |] F.3d 1191, 1200 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Generally, 2 ||amendments adding claims are granted more freely than amendments adding parties. 3 || Union Pacific R.R. Co. v. Nevada Power Co., 950 F.2d 1429, 1432 (9th Cir. 1991). ANALYSIS 5 Plaintiff initially sued Crisp for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer 6 || Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq. (the “TCPA”). Through his Motion, Plaintiff 7 ||seeks to add Boomsourcing, LLC d/b/a Boom.ai (“Boom”), a Utah limited liability 8 ||company, as a Defendant in this action. Mot., ECF No. 17, 2. Plaintiff alleges that 9 || through discovery he learned that Crisp “associated with two other entities to initiate 10 |} unlawful calls to Plaintiff,’ one of which is Boom. /d. Plaintiff further states the other 11 |/entity recently filed for bankruptcy, and thus, he is not adding that entity to this action. 12 13 The Court finds the present Motion is not made in bad faith, would not cause 14 || undue delay to these proceedings, would not prejudice the opposing party, and would not 15 || be futile. See Serra, 600 F.3d at 1200. Accordingly, the Motion is granted. 16 CONCLUSION 17 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 17) is 18 || GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file his Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days of this 19 || Order. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. ( i 21 Dated: January 4, 2021 on, Roger T. Benitez 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28