Hayes v. FT LA Cascada TIC, LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUSSELL HAYES, Case No.: 20cv1801-JAH (DEB)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. AMEND THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND FOR LEAVE TO 14 300 WEST LOS ANGELES, LLC; PAN FILE SECOND AMENDED AMERICAN PROPERTIES, INC; 15 COMPLAINT [Doc. No. 23] VISTA INTERNATIONAL, INC.; 16 BORBA INVESTMENT REALTY, INC.; and DOES 1 THROUGH 10, 17 Inclusive, 18 Defendant. 19 20 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Russell Hayes’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to amend 21 the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) and for leave to file a Second Amended 22 Complaint (“SAC”) in the above-captioned matter. See Doc. No. 23. Pursuant to Civil 23 Local Rule 7.1.e.2, Defendants’ reply in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion was due on or 24 before August 4, 2021. No opposition was filed. For the reasons set forth below, the 25 Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the First Amended Complaint and for leave to 26 file a Second Amended Complaint. 27 /// 28 1 DISCUSSION 2 Plaintiff moves to amend his complaint pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of 3 Civil Procedure. The filing of an amended complaint or counterclaim after a responsive 4 pleading has been filed may be allowed by leave of court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Rule 5 15(a) provides in pertinent part: 6 A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days after serving it, or if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 7 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion 8 under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier. In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s 9 leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires. 10 The Supreme Court has instructed lower courts to heed carefully the language of Rule 11 15(a) admonishing courts to grant leave to amend freely when justice requires. Howey v. 12 United States, 481 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1973). Further, Rule 15(a) is to be 13 interpreted with “extreme liberality.” United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 14 1981). 15 Under Rule 15(a), the non-moving party bears the burden of demonstrating why 16 leave to amend should not be granted. Genetech, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 127 F.R.D. 529, 17 530–31 (N.D. Cal. 1989). Granting leave to amend rests in the sound discretion of the 18 trial court. Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Republic Airlines, 761 F.2d 19 1386, 1390 (9th Cir. 1985). This discretion is guided by the strong policy favoring the 20 disposition of cases on the merits. DCD Programs Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 21 (9th Cir. 1987). However, even though leave to amend is generally granted freely, it is 22 not granted automatically. See Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th 23 Cir. 2002). Courts consider four factors when determining whether to allow amendment 24 of a pleading. The four factors are: (1) prejudice to the opposing party, (2) undue delay, 25 (3) bad faith, and (4) futility. See Hurn v. Ret. Fund Trust, 648 F.2d 1252, 1254 (9th Cir. 26 1981); DCD Programs, 833 F.2d at 186. 27 28 l These factors are not equally weighted; the possibility of delay alone, for instance, 2 || cannot justify denial of leave to amend. See DCD Programs, 833 F.2d at 186; Morongo 3 || Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990). The single most 4 ||important factor is whether the non-moving party would be unduly prejudiced if 5 |}amendment is permitted. William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking 6 || Co., 668 F.2d 1014, 1053, n. 68 (9th Cir. 1981). 7 Plaintiff seeks to amend his claim to include additional facts which form the basis 8 || of Plaintiff's federal claims and eliminate five California state claims. Plaintiff's 9 || proposed SAC only addresses the claims in Plaintiff's current operative FAC and does 10 add any new parties. Defendants have not opposed Plaintiff's motion, and the 11 || proposed amendment does not appear to prejudice Defendants. Additionally, there is no 12 evidence the motion was brought in bad faith or will cause undue delay. As such, the 13 || Court finds no valid reason to deny Plaintiff leave to amend or to deny Plaintiffs request 14 || for leave to amend. 15 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 16 For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 17 1. Plaintiff's motion to amend the first amended complaint and for leave to file a 18 second amended complaint, Doc. No. 23, is GRANTED; and 19 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to file both Plaintiff’s proposed Second 20 Amended Complaint and Exhibit A, attached as Doc. No. 23-2, pp. 4-50 to the 21 motion, forthwith. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 |}|DATED: August 19, 2021 26 17 JQHN A. HOUSTON YNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28