Sebastian v. One Brands, LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Myron James Lorenz (author)
Analysis
The court considered Plaintiff's unopposed motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint. The court granted the motion and ordered Plaintiff to file the amended complaint by August 9, 2021.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Leave to Amend Granted“For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the motion.” | agree with court The court applied the correct legal standard for Rule 15(a) motions, citing the 'extreme liberality' policy and the *Foman* factors. The court found no undue delay, bad faith, prejudice, or futility. Given the unopposed nature of the motion and the early stage of the litigation, granting leave is the standard and correct outcome. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the governing rule and the relevant factors from binding precedent. It applies these factors to the specific facts (timeliness, lack of bad faith, lack of prejudice, first request, no futility) to reach a defensible result. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for an unopposed motion in the early stages of litigation.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 BRITTANY SEBASTIAN, Case No.: 3:20-cv-9-L-MDD 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER ON MOTION FOR LEAVE 12 ONE BRANDS LLC, TO AMEND (ECF 58) 13 Defendant. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended 16 complaint. (ECF 58). There is no opposition. (See Docket). The Court decides the matter 17 on the papers submitted without oral argument. Civ. L. R. 7.1. For the reasons stated 18 below, the Court GRANTS the motion. 19 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), courts “should freely give leave 20 when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “This policy is to be applied with 21 extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th 22 Cir. 2003). 23 In general, when ruling on a motion to amend, courts consider: undue delay, the 24 movant’s bad faith, prejudice to the opposing party, whether the movant previously 25 amended their complaint, and futility of amendment. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 26 (1962); Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004). The most important 27 factor is prejudice. Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. Absent that, or a strong showing 28 1 || of the other factors, there is a “presumption ... in favor of granting leave to amend.” /d. 2 (emphasis original). 3 Plaintiff requests leave to (1) remove the claims related to sugar, (2) add 4 || allegations about nutritional facts and changes that were made after the lawsuit was filed, 5 ||(3) remove the claim for injunctive relief, (4) add a claim for catalyst fees, and (5) 6 || reassert claims against The Hershey Company. (ECF 58). 7 Plaintiffs request is timely. There is nothing to suggest Plaintiff is acting in bad 8 || faith. There is also nothing to suggest Defendant will suffer undue prejudice if the 9 || complaint 1s amended. The case is in its early stages. Moreover, this 1s the first request 10 || for leave. And the proposed amendments are not futile. Therefore, the Court GRANTS 11 |/the motion. Plaintiff has until August 9, 2021 to file the proposed First Amended 12 || Complaint (ECF 58-3, Exhibit B). 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 || Dated: August 4, 2021 fee oop 16 H . James Lorenz, 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28