The Estate of Carlos Escobar Mejia v. Archambeault ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THE ESTATE OF CARLOS ESCOBAR Case No. 20-cv-2454-MMA (KSC) MEJIA, et al., 12 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ Plaintiffs, 13 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE v. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 14 GREGORY ARCHAMBEAULT, et al., 15 [Doc. No. 13] Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiffs The Estate of Carlos Escobar Mejia, Rosa Escobar, Maribel Escobar, and 19 Juan Antonio Escobar (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) move for leave to file a first amended 20 complaint. See Doc. No. 13. The motion is unopposed. See Doc. No. 13-1 at 2.1 21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 governs amendment of pleadings. If a party 22 cannot amend a pleading as a matter of course, the party seeking amendment “may 23 amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. 24 The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 25 This rule reflects an underlying policy that disputes should be determined on their merits 26 27 28 1 and not on the technicalities of pleading rules. See Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805, 808 2 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000)). 3 Accordingly, the Court must be generous in granting leave to amend. See Morongo Band 4 of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990) (noting leave to amend 5 should be granted with “extreme liberality”); Ascon Props., Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 6 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989) (first citing DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 7 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987); and then citing United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th 8 Cir. 1981)). 9 However, courts may consider several factors in deciding whether to grant a 10 motion for leave to amend: “(1) bad faith; (2) undue delay; (3) prejudice to the opposing 11 party; (4) futility of amendment; and (5) whether the plaintiff has previously amended his 12 complaint.” Nunes, 375 F.3d at 808 (citing Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 13 1995)); see also Ascon Props., 866 F.2d at 1160 (citing DCD Programs, Ltd., 833 F.2d at 14 186); McGlinchy v. Shell Chem. Co., 845 F.2d 802, 809 (9th Cir. 1988). The test of 15 futility “is identical to the one used when considering the sufficiency of a pleading 16 challenged under Rule 12(b)(6).” Miller v. Rykoff-Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th 17 Cir. 1988) (citing 3 J. Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4] (2d ed. 1974)). 18 Plaintiffs seek to amend their Complaint to narrow areas of dispute, to delete two 19 Defendants from the fifth cause of action, and to add allegations to the sixth cause of 20 action. See Doc. No. 13-1 at 2–3. The Court does not find evidence of bad faith, undue 21 delay, or prejudice to Defendants. Further, Plaintiffs have not previously amended their 22 Complaint, none of the Defendants have filed an answer, and Plaintiffs’ motion is 23 unopposed. See id. at 2. Thus, the Court gives Plaintiffs leave to file a first amended 24 complaint. 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a first 2 |jamended complaint. The Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to file their first amended complaint 3 or before April 15, 2021. The Court VACATES the hearing on this motion 4 ||previously set for April 19, 2021 at 2:30 P.M. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 ||Dated: April 8, 2021 Méitah la (el tpllr 9 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28