Petconnect Rescue, Inc. v. Salinas ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 18 PETCONNECT RESCUE, INC., a Case No.: 3:20-cv-00527-H-DEB Maryland corporation; LUCKY PUP 19 DOG RESCUE.COM, a California ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 20 corporation; and SARAH GONZALEZ, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A an individual, SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 21 Plaintiffs, 22 [Doc. No. 85.] v. 23 DAVID SALINAS, an individual, et al., 24 Defendants. 25 26 On October 30, 2020, Plaintiffs PetConnect Rescue, Inc., Lucky Pup Dog 27 Rescue.com, and Sarah Gonzalez (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a motion requesting leave 28 to file a second amended complaint (the “SAC”). (Doc. No. 85.) Plaintiffs’ motion was 1 not opposed by any party in this action. In fact, on December 9, 2020, Defendants David 2 Salinas, Veronica Salinas, Richard Robles Pena, Virgo Castro Zusa, The Puppy Store, 3 LLC, Yellow Store Enterprises, LLC, Socal Puppy Adoptions, Inc., Pet Connect Rescue, 4 Inc., Alysia Rothman, Ray Rothman, The Fancy Puppy, LLC, The Puppy Store Las Vegas, 5 LLC, Rick Gallardo, and 360 Clean N Go, LLC notified the Court that they do not oppose 6 Plaintiffs’ motion. (Doc. Nos. 88, 89.) The Court, pursuant to its discretion under Local 7 Rule 7.1(d)(1), determines the matter is appropriate for resolution without oral argument, 8 submits the motion on the parties’ papers, and vacates the hearing scheduled for December 9 21, 2020. 10 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) allows a party leave to amend its pleading 11 once as a matter of right prior to service of a responsive pleading. Thereafter, “a party may 12 amend that party’s pleading only by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse 13 party and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The 14 Ninth Circuit has instructed that this policy is “‘to be applied with extreme liberality.’” 15 Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001). “Five 16 factors are taken into account to assess the propriety of a motion for leave to amend: bad 17 faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, and whether the 18 plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.” Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 19 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Nunes v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 815, 818 (9th Cir. 2003)). The decision 20 whether to grant leave to amend “is entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court.” 21 Pisciotta v. Teledyne Indus., 91 F.3d 1326, 1331 (9th Cir. 1996). 22 Here, the circumstances favor giving Plaintiffs leave to file their proposed SAC. 23 First, Plaintiffs filed their motion seeking leave to amend within the time frame permitted 24 by the Court’s scheduling order. (See Doc. No. 78.) Moreover, there is no evidence that 25 Plaintiffs unduly delayed seeking leave to file their proposed SAC. There is also no 26 evidence before the Court indicating that their request is made in bad faith, would result in 27 any prejudice, or would be futile. Rather, Plaintiffs’ motion seeking leave to file their 28 proposed SAC went unopposed. Accordingly, the Court, in its discretion, grants Plaintiffs’ 1 || motion for leave to file their proposed SAC for good cause shown and in accordance with 2 || the policy that courts should “freely give[]” leave as justice requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a); 3 also Owens, 244 F.3d at 712. Plaintiffs must file their proposed SAC within 14 days 4 || from the date of this Order. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || DATED: December 17, 2020 | | | ul | | | : MARILYN W. HUFF, DistricUJudge 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28