Petersen v. FCA US LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Robert Steven Huie (author)
Analysis
The court considered Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a cause of action under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The court granted the motion and ordered the Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within seven days.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint granted“The Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion.” | agree with court The court applied the correct legal standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) and the Ninth Circuit's five-factor test from Johnson v. Buckley. The order recites that the defendant does not oppose the amendment and that none of the five factors (bad faith, undue delay, prejudice, futility, prior amendments) weigh against granting leave. Based on the record provided in the order, the decision is procedurally and substantively correct. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the governing rule and the relevant Ninth Circuit precedent. It explicitly addresses the factors required by the cited case law and notes the lack of opposition from the defendant. The reasoning is sufficient to support the grant of leave to amend.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TEAGAN PETERSEN, an individual, Case No.: 3:22-CV-668-RSH-DEB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 13 v. LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT 14 FCA US, LLC, A Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 15 20, inclusive, 16 Defendants. 17 18 On June 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion For Leave To Amend (“Motion”). ECF 19 No. 11. The Motion seeks to add a third cause of action for violation of the Magnuson- 20 Moss Warranty Act. Defendant does not oppose the amendment. ECF No. 11 at 2. 21 The district court should “freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” 22 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The court considers five factors in determining whether a motion 23 for leave to amend is appropriate: “bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing 24 party, futility of amendment, and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the 25 complaint.” Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004). Here, and as 26 explained in the Motion (ECF No. 11 at 3-5), none of those five factors weigh against 27 granting leave to amend. The Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion. Pursuant to 28 // CivLR 15.1(b), Plaintiff is ordered to file and serve its amended complaint within seven 2 (7) days from the date of this order. ° IT IS SO ORDERED. fekut lbw 5 ||Dated: July 5, 2022 6 Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28