Waryck v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Myron James Lorenz (author)
Analysis
Plaintiffs moved for leave to file a second amended complaint, a motion that was not opposed by any defendant. The court granted the motion, citing the liberal standard for amendments under Rule 15, and set a deadline for filing the amended complaint.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the first amended complaint is granted.“Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend is granted.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard from Foman v. Davis and Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., which requires that leave to amend be freely given absent undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies, undue prejudice, or futility. The court found none of these factors present, and noted the lack of opposition from defendants. The decision follows directly from the cited authorities and the procedural posture. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the governing rule (Rule 15(a)(2)) and the controlling case law (Foman and Eminence Capital). It applies the factors from Foman to the specific facts (no opposition, no prejudice, no futility) and reaches the correct conclusion. The order is concise and appropriate for a non-contested motion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WARYCK, ET AL. Case No.: 3:22-cv-1096-L-KSC 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 13 v. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 14 THOR MOTOR COACH INC., ET AL. [ECF No. 47] 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pending before the Court in this action is Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the 18 first amended complaint. Plaintiffs have indicated that Defendants Thor Motor Coach, 19 Inc. and Mike Thompson Recreational Vehicles, Santa Fe Springs do not oppose the 20 motion. Defendant Reliable Delivery Services, Inc., has not opposed within the time 21 allowed by Civ. L. R. 7.1.e.2. The Court decides the matter on the papers submitted and 22 without oral argument. See Civ. L. R. 7.1.d.1. For the reasons stated below, the 23 Plaintiffs’ motion is granted. 24 Rule 15 advises leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires. Fed. 25 R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “This policy is to be applied with extreme liberality.” Eminence 26 Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation 27 marks and citation omitted). 28 1 In the absence of any apparent or declared reason — such as undue delay, bad 7 faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the 3 opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of the A amendment, etc. — the leave sought should, as the rules require, be freely given. 5 6 Foman vy. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (internal quotation marks and citation 4 omitted). g Here, the Court finds that allowing a second amended complaint would not cause 9 undue delay, is not done in bad faith, would not cause undue prejudice, and would not be 10 futile. As leave sought should, as the rules require, be freely given, and no parties oppose ll the amendment, leave will be granted. 12 Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend is granted. No later than 13 November 1, 2023, Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint in compliance with this 14 order, if any. Leave to amend is limited in scope addressed in the motion. Defendant 15 shall file and serve a response, if any, no later than the time provided in Federal Rule of 16 Civil Procedure 15(a)(3). The Plaintiffs also request an extension of all deadlines in the 7 scheduling order. Pursuant to Civ. L. R. 16.2, the parties are instructed to contact the 18 chambers of the Magistrate Judge assigned to this case regarding the scheduling order. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 71 Dated: October 25, 2023 22 H . James Lorenz 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28