Microsoft Corporation v. Sean B. Malcolm PLLC ( 2021 )

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 MICROSOFT CORPORATION, in its capacity CASE NO. C20-1800-JCC as fiduciary of the Microsoft Corporation 10 Welfare Plan, MINUTE ORDER 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 MOHAR CHATTERJEE, individually, and SEAN B. MALCOLM, PLLC, 14 15 Defendants. 16 The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable John C. 17 Coughenour, United States District Judge: 18 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Microsoft Corporation’s unopposed 19 motion for leave to amend its complaint (Dkt. No. 18). In December 2020, Plaintiff filed suit in 20 its capacity as fiduciary of a health insurance plan under the Employee Retirement Income 21 Security Act of 1974 against Defendant Mohar Chatterjee, a health plan beneficiary, and Sean B. 22 Malcolm, PLLC, a law firm that represents Ms. Chatterjee, seeking reimbursement of medical 23 expenses paid by the plan on behalf of Ms. Chatterjee from any settlements she received from 24 the parties responsible for her injuries. (See generally Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff now moves to amend 25 its complaint to correct a scrivener’s error in ¶ 26. (Dkt. No. 18.) 26 1 The Court is afforded discretion to grant leave to amend and “[t]he court should freely 2 give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The generosity in granting leave to 3 amend is “to be applied with extreme liberality” as there is a strong presumption in favor of 4 granting leave to amend a complaint. Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 5 1051–52 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court must consider five factors in granting leave to amend a 6 complaint: (1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of 7 amendment, and (5) whether the complaint has previously been amended. See, e.g. United States 8 v. Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir. 2011). Having considered these factors, the 9 Court finds they each weigh in favor of granting leave to amend to correct the scrivener’s error. 10 There is no evidence of bad faith or undue delay, no opposition to the motion was filed, the 11 Court perceives no prejudice to the opposing parties or futility of amendment, and the complaint 12 has not previously been amended. 13 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file the First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 14 18), attached to the motion as Exhibit 2, is GRANTED. 15 DATED this 2nd day of August 2021. Ravi Subramanian 16 Clerk of Court 17 s/Paula McNabb 18 Deputy Clerk 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26