Block v. Smart Place Inc ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HENDRIK BLOCK, Case No. 1:22-cv-01417-ADA-BAM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST 13 v. AMENDED COMPLAINT 14 SMART PLACE INC dba V-RED, (Doc. 17) 15 Defendant. 16 17 On May 1, 2023, Plaintiff Hendrik Block filed the instant motion seeking leave to file a 18 first amended complaint. (Doc. 17.) Defendant Smart Place Inc. dba V-RED (“Defendant”) filed 19 a statement of non-opposition to Plaintiff’s motion on May 12, 2023. (Doc. 19.) 20 In the absence of opposition, the matter is submitted on the current record. L. R. 230(g). 21 Having considered the unopposed motion and the record in this case, Plaintiff’s motion for leave 22 to file a first amended complaint will be GRANTED. 23 DISCUSSION 24 Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend was filed on May 1, 2023, consistent with the 25 deadline for file stipulations or motions to amend under the Scheduling Order (Doc. 11). 26 Plaintiff’s motion is therefore considered under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 standard 27 for amendment to the pleadings. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th 28 Cir. 1992) (concluding that motion to amend filed after pretrial scheduling order deadline must 1 satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16). Rule 15(a) provides that a court 2 “should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The 3 United States Supreme Court has stated: 4 [i]n the absence of any apparent or declared reason—such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies 5 by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc. —the leave sought 6 should, as the rules require, be “freely given.” 7 Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). The intent of the rule is to “facilitate decision on the 8 merits, rather than on the pleadings or technicalities.” Chudacoff v. Univ. Med. Center of S. Nev., 9 649 F.3d 1143, 1152 (9th Cir. 2011). Consequently, the “policy of favoring amendments to 10 pleadings should be applied with ‘extreme liberality.’” United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 11 (9th Cir. 1981). 12 Courts consider five factors in determining whether justice requires allowing amendment 13 under Rule 15(a): “bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, 14 and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.” Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 15 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted); Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 16 1995) (citing Western Shoshone Nat’l Council v. Molini, 951 F.2d 200, 204 (9th Cir. 1991)). 17 These factors are not of equal weight as prejudice to the opposing party has long been held to be 18 the most critical factor in determining whether to grant leave to amend. Eminence Capital, LLC 19 v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (“As this circuit and others have held, it is 20 the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight”); Jackson v. 21 Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Prejudice to the opposing party is the 22 most important factor.”). Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining factors, a 23 presumption exists under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend. Eminence Capital, 316 24 F.3d at 1052. 25 Defendant has filed a statement of non-opposition to the motion for leave to file a first 26 amended complaint. Having considered the moving papers as well as Defendant’s non- 27 opposition, the Court finds that there will be little prejudice to Defendant in permitting the 28 amendment. The Court additionally finds that Plaintiff has not unduly delayed in seeking to 1 amend the complaint, the amendment is not brought in bad faith, and there is no indication that 2 such amendment is futile. Accordingly, leave to file a first amended complaint will be granted. 3 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 4 For the reasons discussed above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (Doc. 17) is 6 GRANTED; 7 2. Within five (5) court days after issuance of this Order, Plaintiff shall file the First 8 Amended Complaint, a copy of which was attached as Exhibit A to the motion; and 9 3. Defendant shall file an answer or other responsive pleading in compliance with the 10 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any relevant Local Rules following electronic service of the 11 First Amended Complaint. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 Dated: May 20, 2023 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28