Walker v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 GEORGE WALKER, Case No.: 20-cv-2311-DMS-BGS 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO 12 v. AMEND COMPLAINT 13 TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS AMERICA, INC. et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 On April 12, 2021, Plaintiff George Walker filed a motion to amend his complaint 18 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). (ECF No. 4.) Defendants did not file a response in 19 opposition to the motion. 20 Rule 15(a)(2) provides that “a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing 21 party's written consent or the court's leave.” However, the rule further provides that 22 “court[s] should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The 23 decision to grant leave to amend is one that rests in the discretion of the trial court. See 24 Int’l Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Republic Airlines, 761 F.2d 1386, 1390 25 (9th Cir. 1985). The policy in favor of granting leave to amend “is to be applied with 26 extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th 27 Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted). This liberality dictates that the nonmoving party bears the 28 burden of demonstrating why leave to amend should not be granted. Grant v. Hill, 11- 1 |} cv-3015-JAH, 2021 WL 1378813, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2021) (citing Genentech, Inc. 2 ||v. Abbott Laboratories, 127 F.R.D. 529, 530-31 (N.D. Cal. 1989)). 3 In determining whether to allow an amendment under Rule 15(a)(2), courts generally 4 ||consider five factors: (1) “undue delay,” (2) “bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the 5 ||movant,” (3) “repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed,” 6 || (4) “undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment,” and 7 || (5) “futility of amendment.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); see also Smith v. 8 || Pac. Prop. Dev. Co., 358 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing the Foman factors). 9 Here, Plaintiff filed his motion to amend less than four months after filing his initial 10 || complaint. (See ECF Nos. 1, 4.) Further, the proposed amendment to the Complaint would 11 |/be Plaintiff's first. Finally, Defendants failed to put forward any argument that □□□□□□□□□□□ 12 ||amendment would be futile, prejudicial, or otherwise in bad faith. Therefore, □□□□□□□□□□ □ 13 || motion for leave to amend is granted.' 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Dated: May 17, 2021 ins WM. L4\ 17 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw 18 Unites States Chief District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ' This motion is currently scheduled for a hearing on May 21, 2021. That hearing is vacated as moot in light of this order.