Cipriani v. Resorts World Las Vegas, LLC ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Robert J Cipriani, 4 2:23-cv-01626-MMD-MDC Plaintiff(s), 5 vs. Order 6 Resorts World Las Vegas, LLC, 7 Defendant(s). 8 Pending before the Court is plaintiff Robert J. Cipriani’s (“Mr. Cipriani”) Motion for Leave of 9 the Court to File a First Amended Complaint (“Motion to Amend”) (ECF No. 46). Defendants Resorts 10 World Las Vegas, LLC and Resorts World Las Vegas Hotels, LLC (“Resorts World”) filed an 11 Opposition (ECF No. 49) to the Motion to Amend. Defendant Scott Sibella (“Mr. Sibella”) also filed an 12 Opposition (ECF No. 48). The Court grants the Motion to Amend (ECF No. 46). 13 DISCUSSION 14 Mr. Cipriani seeks to amend his Complaint (ECF No. 1) based on newly discovered evidence. 15 ECF No. 46 at 3:11-12. Specifically, Mr. Cipriani seeks to amend his Complaint based on his counsel, 16 Vikram Sohal, learning that Mr. Sibella pleaded guilty to money laundering charges. ECF No. 46 at 3:9- 17 10. Mr. Cipriani’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) seeks to (1) “add new allegations and three 18 exhibits…to the FAC that relate to Sibella’s recent guilty plea” (ECF No. 46 at 3: 16-17) and (2) 19 “remove[] any and all references to a report to the Nevada Gaming Control Board (NGCB)” (ECF No. 20 46 at 4:22-23). Defendants Mr. Sibella and Resorts World oppose the Motion to Amend. ECF Nos. 48 21 and 49. Mr. Sibella argues that “the prosed FAC is submitted in bad faith and for improper purposes.” 22 ECF No. 48 at 6:1. Resorts World argues that the amendment is futile and would result in prejudice. 23 ECF No. 49 at 5:26-28. 24 I. LEGAL STANDARD 25 1 Once the time to amend a pleading as a matter of course has expired, “a party may amend its 2 pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. R. 3 15(a)(2). The Rule states that “courts should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Id. The policy 4 is applied with “extreme liberality.” See Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 5 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Chodos v. W. Publ. Co., 292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002). However, the 6 “extreme liberality” is tempered by other considerations. See Grand Canal Shops II, LLC v. Lavarone, 7 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171921, at *3 (D. Nev. Dec. 4, 2012). Courts look to five factors when assessing 8 the propriety of a Motion to Amend: (1) bad faith; (2) undue delay; (3) prejudice to the opposing party; 9 (4) futility of amendment; and (5) whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint. See 10 Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Eminence Capital, LLC, 316 F.3d at 11 1052. 12 II. ANALYSIS 13 a. Bad Faith, Undue Delay, and Prejudice 14 The Court finds that there is no bad faith, undue delay, or prejudice because it is still early in the 15 case. The good faith factor weighs in favor of amendment. Mr. Cipriani moved to amend after his 16 counsel discovered new facts. ECF No. 46. Although Mr. Sibella argues bad faith, “the Court must grant 17 all inferences in favor of allowing amendment,” therefore, the Court rejects Mr. Sibella’s assertion of 18 bad faith and finds that good faith warrants amendment. See Holland v. Pinnacle Servs. Inc., 2023 U.S. 19 Dist. LEXIS 156336, at *13 (D. Nev. July 25, 2023) (citing DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 20 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987)). Although Resorts World argues they incurred expenses and delay, the Court 21 finds no undue delay or prejudice because discovery has been stayed. See ECF No. 45 (granting the 22 Motion to Stay (ECF No. 35)); and United States v. United Healthcare Ins. Co., 848 F.3d 1161, 1184 23 (9th Cir. 2016) (“litigation expenses incurred before a motion to amend is filed do not establish 24 prejudice.”) 25 b. Futility 1 The Court defers the issue of futility because defendants may seek dismissal after the amendment 2 filed. See Nev. Power Co. v. Trench Fr., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53860, at *4 (D. Nev. March 24, 3 || 2020) (citing Netbula, LLC v. Distinct Corp., 212 F.R.D. 534, 539 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (“Denial of leave to 4 |}amend on this ground [futility] is rare. Ordinarily, courts will defer consideration of challenges to the 5 || merits of a proposed amended pleading until after leave to amend is granted and the amended pleading 6 filed.”). "Deferring ruling on the sufficiency of the allegations is preferred in light of the more liberal 7 || standards applicable to motions to amend and the fact that the parties’ arguments are better developed 8 || through a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment.” Steward v. CMRE Fin’ Servs., Inc., 9 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141867, at *2 (D. Nev. Oct. 16, 2015). 10 c. Previous Amendments 11 The Court finds that since there have been no previous amendments, this factor ways in favor of 12 || granting the Motion to Amend (ECF No. 46). Cf, Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S. Ct. 227, 13 || 230 (1962) (looking to a plaintiff's “repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously 14 || allowed.”); see also Johnson, 356 F.3d at 1077. 15 ACCORDINGLY, 16 IT IS ORDERED that: 17 1. The Motion to Amend (ECF No. 46) is GRANTED. 18 2. Plaintiff must file their First Amended Complaint within one week of this Order. 19 DATED this 8 day of April 2024. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. te, YP jp 21 if i | 22 fi oii I 33 United States Magistrate Judge 24 25