Edleson v. Travel Insured International, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LOUIS B. EDLESON, on behalf of Case No.: 21-cv-323-WQH-AGS himself and all others similarly situated, 12 ORDER Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 TRAVEL INSURED INTERNATIONAL, 15 INC., and UNITED STATES FIRE 16 INSURANCE COMPANY, 17 Defendants. 18 HAYES, Judge: 19 The matter before the Court is the Motion for Leave to File First Amended 20 Complaint filed by Plaintiff Louis B. Edelson. (ECF No. 30). 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 On February 23, 2021, Plaintiff Louis B. Edelson filed a Class Action Complaint 23 against Defendants Travel Insured International, Inc. and United States Fire Insurance 24 Company, alleging that Defendants violated California state law by failing to refund travel 25 insurance premiums paid for post-departure coverage on trips that were never taken. 26 Plaintiff alleged the following claims on behalf of himself and a nationwide class: (1) 27 unjust enrichment; and (2) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & 28 1 Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. Plaintiff sought damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and 2 attorneys’ fees and costs. 3 On May 3, 2021, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 20). On September 4 23, 2021, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ 5 Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 27). The Court dismissed the “request for injunctive relief” 6 and the “putative claims on behalf of non-California insureds whose claims would be 7 governed by the laws of states other than California” without prejudice and with leave to 8 file a motion for leave to amend. (Id. at 13). 9 On October 25, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File First Amended 10 Complaint. (ECF No. 30). Plaintiff seeks leave to file an amended complaint that “cures 11 the deficiencies identified by the Court with regard to Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive 12 relief.” (ECF No. 30-1 at 3). 13 On November 15, 2021, Defendants filed a Response to the Motion for Leave to File 14 First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 31). Defendants “do not oppose leave for Plaintiff to 15 file the ‘proposed First Amended Class Action Complaint’ (the ‘proposed FAC’), but 16 Defendants expressly reserve and do not waive their right under Rule 12 to seek dismissal 17 of the injunctive relief claim in the proposed FAC.” (Id. at 2). 18 On November 16, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Reply. (ECF No. 32). 19 II. LEGAL STANDARD 20 Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that leave to amend “be 21 freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “This policy is to be applied 22 with extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th 23 Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (quoting Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 24 712 (9th Cir. 2001)). The Supreme Court has identified several factors district courts should 25 consider when deciding whether to grant leave to amend: “undue delay, bad faith or 26 dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by 27 amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of 28 allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of amendment.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 1 || 182 (1962); see also Smith v. Pac. Props. Dev. Corp., 358 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th Cir. 2004). 2 || all of the [Foman] factors merit equal weight. As this circuit and others have held, it 3 the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight.” 4 || Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. “The party opposing amendment bears the burden of 5 || showing prejudice.” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987). 6 || ““Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman factors, there exists 7 ||a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Eminence Capital, 8 F.3d at 1052. 9 RULING OF THE COURT 10 The proposed FAC adds factual allegations in support of Plaintiff's request for 11 |/injunctive relief. This case is in its early stages, and the proposed amendment seeks to cure 12 deficiencies identified by the Court in the Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. 13 || Defendants “do not oppose leave for Plaintiff to file the . . . ‘proposed FAC.’” (ECF No. 14 at 2). The Court concludes that the Foman factors do not warrant deviating from the 15 “presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Eminence Capital, 16 F.3d at 1052 (emphasis omitted). 17 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File First Amended 18 ||Complaint (ECF No. 30) is granted. Plaintiff shall file the proposed FAC attached as 19 ||““Exhibit 1” to the Declaration of Yury A. Kolesnikov (ECF No. 30-2) within five (5) days 20 || of the date of this Order. 21 || Dated: November 30, 2021 itt Z. A a 22 Hon. William Q. Hayes 23 United States District Court 24 25 26 27 28