Malikalalou, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Marilyn L. Huff (author)
Analysis
The court considered a joint motion by the Limitation Plaintiff and the Otoro Parties for leave to file a first amended counterclaim that omits a counter-defendant and clarifies allegations. The court granted the motion, citing the liberal standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2).
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Joint Motion for Leave to Amend Counterclaim granted“For good cause shown, the Court grants Limitation Plaintiff leave to amend its counterclaim.” | agree with court The decision follows the law and the record. The parties filed a joint motion, and the proposed amendment is procedural (omitting a party and clarifying allegations) rather than substantive in a way that would prejudice the opposing party. Under Rule 15(a)(2), leave should be freely given when justice so requires, and the Ninth Circuit precedent cited supports a liberal application of this rule. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the standard for amending pleadings under Rule 15(a)(2). It cites the relevant rule and binding Ninth Circuit authority that supports a liberal approach to amendments. The reasoning is sufficient for a routine, unopposed (joint) motion to amend.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14
15 In the Matter of: Case No.: 3:20-cv-01693-H-MSB 16 17 MALIKALALOU, INC., owner of a 2008 ORDER GRANTING JOINT Privilege 45’ catamaran sailing vessel MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 18 named “Malikalalou”, HIN # 19 JMA90C10K708, her engine, tackle, [Doc. No. 16.] apparel, appurtenances, etc., for 20 Exoneration from or Limitation of 21 Liability. 22 23 On August 31, 2020, Malikalalou, Inc. (“Limitation Plaintiff”), as the owner of a 24 2008 Privilege 45’ catamaran sailing vessel named “Malikalalou,” HIN# JMA90C10K708, 25 (the “Vessel”) filed a complaint pursuant to the Limitation of Liability Act, 46 U.S.C. 26 § 30501 et seq., claiming the right to exoneration from, or limitation of, liability for all 27 claims arising out of an incident that occurred on May 30, 2020. (Doc. No. 1.) On 28 1 || Co. (the “Otoro Parties’’) filed an answer to Limitation Plaintiff's complaint and asserted a 2 ||counterclaim against it. (Doc. No. 7.) On December 15, 2020, Limitation Plaintiff filed 3 ||an answer to the Otoro Parties’ counterclaim and asserted its own counterclaim against 4 ||them. (Doc. No. 11.) 5 On January 21, 2021, Limitation Plaintiff and the Otoro Parties filed a joint motion 6 ||requesting the Court to give leave to Limitation Plaintiff to file a first amended 7 |{counterclam. (Doc. No. 16.) As the parties explain, the proposed first amended 8 ||counterclaim omits Ace Insurance Co. as a counter-defendant to that claim and otherwise 9 || clarifies Limitation Plaintiffs allegations. (Id. 4] 1-2.) For good cause shown, the Court 10 || grants Limitation Plaintiff leave to amend its counterclaim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) 11 |}(‘The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.’”’); Owens v. Kaiser 12 || Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001) (explaining that the policy 13 || of granting leave to amend freely when justice so requires “is to be applied with extreme 14 || liberality” (citations omitted)). Limitation Plaintiff has five (5) days from the date of this 15 order to file the proposed amended counterclaim with the Court. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 || DATED: January 26, 2021 - 19 MARILYN UW. HUFF, DistrictJugge UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28