Sihler v. The Fulfillment Lab, Inc
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
Plaintiffs moved for leave to amend their complaint to add new defendants and claims discovered during discovery. The court granted the motion, ordering plaintiffs to correct the caption to remove a deleted cause of action and file the amended complaint by March 7, 2022.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Plaintiffs' Second Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint is granted.“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion as follows:” | agree with court The court correctly applied the Rule 15(a) standard and the Ninth Circuit's five-factor test for leave to amend. The record indicates no bad faith or undue delay (identities were unknown until discovery), no prejudice (defendants agreed in the joint discovery plan), and no futility (claims are against identified entities). The prior amendment does not bar this one given the new information. The decision follows from the law and the recited record. |
Plaintiffs are ordered to correct the proposed Second Amended Complaint by deleting the sixth cause of action from the caption and file the corrected complaint by March 7, 2022.“Plaintiffs shall correct the proposed Second Amended Complaint by deleting the sixth cause of action from the caption. ... Plaintiffs shall file and serve the corrected Second Amended Complaint on or before March 7, 2022.” | agree with court This is a procedural directive to ensure the filed document matches the proposed amendment (which eliminated the sixth cause of action). It is a standard administrative correction required for the amendment to be properly entered. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable legal standard (Rule 15(a) and the Ninth Circuit's five-factor test) and applies it to the specific facts recited in the motion (unknown identities revealed in discovery, lack of prejudice due to defendant agreement, no futility). The reasoning is complete and directly supports the grant of the motion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JANET SIHLER, individually and on Case No.: 20cv1528-LL-MSB behalf of all others similarly situated; 12 CHARLENE BAVENCOFF, individually ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 13 and on behalf of all others similarly SECOND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO situated, AMEND THE COMPLAINT 14 Plaintiffs, 15 v. [ECF No. 115] 16 THE FULFILLMENT LAB, INC.; 17 RICHARD NELSON;
18 BEYOND GLOBAL, INC., 19 Defendants. 20 21 Currently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Second Motion for Leave to Amend the 22 Complaint (“Motion” or “Mot.”). ECF No. 115. No opposition has been filed. For the 23 reasons set forth below, the Motion is GRANTED. 24 Plaintiffs in this putative class action seek leave to amend their First Amended 25 Complaint to add additional Defendants whose identifies were uncovered in the discovery 26 process and to add claims against these Defendants. Mot. at 2. Plaintiffs attached to their 27 Motion a proposed Second Amended Complaint and a red-lined amended complaint. 28 ECF Nos. 115-1, 115-2. 1 A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within twenty-one days 2 after serving it. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). When the time has passed for amendment as a matter 3 of course, a party may amend its pleading with the opposing party’s written consent or with 4 the court’s permission. Id. “The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” 5 Id. The Ninth Circuit has stated that “this policy is to be applied with extreme liberality.” 6 Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation 7 omitted). “Five factors are taken into account to assess the propriety of a motion for leave 8 to amend: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, 9 and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.” Johnson v. Buckley, 10 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004). 11 The Court does not find the presence of bad faith or undue delay. Plaintiffs request 12 to amend their complaint to add Defendants Brightree Holdings Corp., BMOR Global 13 LLC, David Flynn, and Rickie Joe James. Mot. at 4. Plaintiffs state that the identities of 14 these Defendants were unknown when they filed their complaint and the First Amended 15 Complaint (“FAC”), and were revealed only after Plaintiffs used non-public corporate 16 records produced by Defendants in discovery. Id. at 4–5. The Court notes that the motion 17 to amend was timely filed. See ECF No. 113. 18 Additionally, the Court does not find that granting leave to amend would prejudice 19 the opposing parties or be futile. In the parties’ joint discovery plan, Defendants agreed 20 that it was appropriate for Plaintiffs to add the new Defendants identified in their proposed 21 Second Amended Complaint. Mot. at 6; ECF No. 111 at 2–3. Adding new Defendants and 22 claims against them would not be futile because Plaintiffs describe the new Defendants as 23 individuals and corporations who were behind the activities previously alleged in the FAC 24 but who could not be identified from public information. Mot. at 6. 25 As to the last factor, although Plaintiffs amended their complaint once before, the 26 new information was unknown at that time. Id. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS 27 Plaintiffs’ Motion as follows: 28 l 1. The Court notes that Plaintiffs eliminated the sixth cause of action for 2 “violation of various consumer protection laws” in their proposed and redlined Second 3 Amended Complaint, but it remains in the caption. Plaintiffs shall correct the proposed 4 ||Second Amended Complaint by deleting the sixth cause of action from the caption. 5 2. Plaintiffs shall file and serve the corrected Second Amended Complaint on or 6 || before March 7, 2022. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 || Dated: March 2, 2022 NO 9 QF | 10 Honorable Linda Lopez 1 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28