Lundstrom v. Young
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Malcolm F. Marsh (author)
Analysis
Defendants Ligand Pharmaceuticals and Ligand Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 401(k) Plan moved for leave to amend their answer and defenses to the Second Amended Complaint, a motion to which the Plaintiff filed a non-opposition. The Court granted the motion, vacated the scheduled hearing, and ordered the Defendants to file their amended answer within two days.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting Defendants' Motion for Leave to Amend Answer and Defenses to Second Amended Complaint“the Court hereby GRANTS Ligand’s Motion, and VACATKES the hearing currently scheduled for April 7, 2023.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for amending pleadings under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a) and 16(b)(4). The order recites that the moving party was diligent and that the non-moving party is not seriously prejudiced, noting specifically that the Plaintiff filed a non-opposition. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, the absence of opposition and lack of prejudice strongly favor granting leave to amend. The decision follows logically from the cited authorities and the procedural posture described in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the relevant legal standards for amending pleadings (Rule 15 and Rule 16(b)(4)) and applies the controlling Ninth Circuit test from Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc. The court explicitly finds that the factors favoring amendment (diligence, lack of prejudice, and non-opposition) are present. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a routine motion where the opposing party does not contest the request.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRIAN LUNDSTROM, Case No.: 18-cv-2856-GPC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING LIGAND’S 13 v. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWER AND DEFENSES TO 14 CARLA YOUNG, an individual; SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; 15 LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. [ECF No. 146] 16 401(K) PLAN; and DOES 1 through 20, 17 Defendant. 18 19 On February 23, 2023, Defendants Ligand Pharmaceuticals and Ligand 20 Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 401(k) Plan (“Defendants” or collectively “Ligand”) filed a Motion 21 for Leave to Amend Answer and Defenses to the Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 22 146. The Court set a briefing schedule. ECF No. 147. On March 17, 2023, Plaintiff Brian 23 Lundstrom (“Plaintiff” or “Lundstrom”) filed a Non-Opposition. ECF No. 153. 24 A party seeking to amend a pleading past a scheduling order deadline must show 25 “good cause” for such relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). A court should grant leave to 26 amend a pleading “freely” and “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). A court 27 1 || should determine whether the moving party was diligent in seeking amendment and 2 || whether there is sufficient prejudice to the non-moving party to justify denial of the 3 ||motion to amend. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 4 || 1992). 5 The Court finds that Ligand was diligent in seeking amendment and that Plaintiff is 6 || not seriously prejudiced by amendment at this stage, indeed Plaintiff does not oppose the 7 ||amendment. See ECF No. 153. Because “[R]ule 15’s policy of favoring amendments to 8 || pleadings should be applied with extreme liberality,” the Court hereby GRANTS 9 || Ligand’s Motion, and VACATKES the hearing currently scheduled for April 7, 2023. 10 || Defendant Ligand shall file its amended answer within two (2) days of this Order’s 11 issuance. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: March 21, 2023 =< 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 18-cv-2856-GPC