Patton v. Extended Stay America, Inc. ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL PATTON, No. 1:20-cv-01498-DAD-SKO 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 14 ESA P PORTFOLIO, L.L.C., et al., FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT 15 Defendants. (Doc. No. 25) 16 17 This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s unopposed motion for leave to file an 18 amended complaint. (Doc. No. 25.) Defendants filed a statement of non-opposition to plaintiff’s 19 pending motion on October 19, 2021. (Doc. No. 31.) Pursuant to General Order No. 617 20 addressing the public health emergency posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, plaintiff’s motion 21 was taken under submission on the papers. (Doc. No. 26.) 22 “A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within: (A) 21 days after 23 serving it or (B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after 24 service if a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), 25 whichever is earlier.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Otherwise, a party must seek leave of court to 26 amend a pleading or receive the opposing party’s written consent. Id. 27 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that leave to amend pleadings “shall be 28 freely given when justice so requires.” Id. Nevertheless, leave to amend need not be granted 1 | when the amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces 2 | an undue delay in litigation; or (4) is futile. See AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist W. Inc., 3 | 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757 (9th Cir. 1999)). 4 | “Prejudice to the opposing party is the most important factor.” Jackson v. Bank of Haw., 902 5 | F.3d 1385, 1397 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research Inc., 401 U.S. 6 | 321, 330-31 (1971)). “The party opposing leave to amend bears the burden of showing 7 | prejudice.” Serpa v. SBC Telecomms., 318 F. Supp. 2d 865, 870 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (citing DCD 8 | Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987)). 9 Here, by filing a statement of non-opposition to plaintiff's motion for leave to file a first 10 | amended complaint, defendants have effectively provided plaintiff with their written consent. 11 | (Doc. No. 31.) In addition, by not opposing plaintiffs motion, defendants essentially concede 12 | that they are not prejudiced by the court granting plaintiff leave to amend his complaint. 13 Accordingly: 14 1. Plaintiff's unopposed motion for leave to file a first amended complaint (Doc. No. 15 25) is granted; and 16 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file the proposed first amended 17 complaint (Doc. No. 25-1) on the docket captioned as the first amended 18 complaint. 19 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ “0 Dated: _ December 4, 2021 L A Ti yA 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28