Brooks v. Vitamin World USA Corp. ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VALERIE BROOKS, individually and No. 2:20-cv-01485-MCE-KJN on behalf of all others similarly situated, 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER v. 14 VITAMIN WORLD USA 15 CORPORATION, d.b.a. VITAMIN WORLD, a New York corporation; and 16 DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, 17 Defendant. 18 19 Through this action, Plaintiff Valerie Brooks (“Plaintiff”) brings claims under both 20 the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181, et seq., and California law. 21 Presently before the Court is an unopposed Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer 22 filed by Defendant Vitamin World USA Corporation, d.b.a. Vitamin World (“Defendant”). 23 ECF No. 12 (“Motion”). For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s Motion is 24 GRANTED. Plaintiff has previously filed a Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses Nos. 1- 25 15 and 17-19 (ECF No. 8), which is DENIED as moot. 26 According to Defendant: 27 In response to concerns raised in the Motion to Strike and to save all parties and the Court time and resources that would 28 be spent litigating the Motion to Strike, Defendant proposes, 1 without waiving its right to raise and/or reassert such defenses (affirmative or otherwise), that it will (a) remove from its Answer 2 Defenses Nos. 1- 8, 11-15, and 18-19; and (b) supplement Defense Nos. 8-10, 15, and 17. These are the only changes to 3 the Answer for which Defendant seeks leave to amend. In the proposed Amended Answer, Defense Nos. 9-10, 16 (to which 4 Plaintiff did not object in her Motion to Strike), and 17 from the original Answer are now Defense Nos. 1-4. Pursuant to 5 Eastern District of California Local Rule 137, the proposed Amended Answer is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 6 7 Motion at 1 (footnote omitted) (emphasis removed). 8 The decision to grant leave to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9 15(a)(1)(A) is within the discretion of the district court. Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music 10 Publ’g., 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir.2008). “Rule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend 11 shall be freely given when justice so requires.” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist 12 W., Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757 13 (9th Cir.1999)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under Rule 15(a), leave to amend 14 “generally shall be denied only upon showing of bad faith, undue delay, futility, or undue 15 prejudice to the opposing party.” Chudacoff v. Univ. Med. Ctr. of S. Nevada, 649 F.3d 16 1143, 1152 (9th Cir. 2011). 17 Here, Defendant has timely responded to Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike with the 18 instant Motion. There is no evidence that granting leave to amend would prejudice 19 Plaintiff, cause undue delay, or be an exercise in futility. Nor is there any suggestion that 20 this Motion is sought in bad faith. The Court is further persuaded by the lack of 21 opposition from Plaintiff to the instant Motion. Therefore, Defendant will be afforded the 22 opportunity to amend its Answer. 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 4 For the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s request to amend its Answer is 2 | GRANTED. Motion, ECF No. 12. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike is DENIED as moot. ECF 3 | No. 8. Not later than five (5) days following the date this order is electronically filed, 4 | Defendant is DIRECTED to file its amended answer. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: March 16, 2021 8 □ late JES. Whip AX XC - ° SENIOR UNITED STATES URTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28