1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SF 2402 LLC, Case No.: 21-CV-906-GPC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING: 12 v. (1) GRANTING 13 B.F.B., INC., d/b/a BRADFORD DEFENDANT/COUNTERCLAIMANT’S FOX BUILDERS AND DOES 1 14 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST THROUGH 10, AMENDED ANSWER [ECF No. 27]; 15 Defendants. 16 (2) GRANTING DEFENDANT/COUNTERCLAIMANT’S 17 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST 18 AMENDED THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT [ECF No. 28]; AND 19 20 (3) DIRECTING DEFENDANT/COUNTERCLAIMANT 21 TO FILE THEIR AMENDED 22 PLEADINGS ON OR BEFORE APRIL 20, 2022 23 24 / / 25 / / 26 27 28 1 INTRODUCTION 2 Before the Court are two motions filed by Defendant/Counterclaimant Bradford 3 Fox Builders (hereafter, “BFB”): (1) a motion for leave to file a first amended answer to 4 Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant SF 2402’s Complaint (ECF No. 27); and (2) a motion 5 for leave to file a first amended third-party complaint (ECF No. 28). 6 Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant SF 2402 (hereafter “SF 2402”) filed notices of non- 7 opposition as to both motions by BFB. ECF Nos. 30, 31. For the reasons stated below, 8 the Court hereby GRANTS BFB’s motion for leave to amend its answer to SF 2402’s 9 complaint, and GRANTS BFB’s motion for leave to amend its third-party complaint. 10 The Court further finds that this matter is suitable for disposition without a motion 11 hearing under Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1) and hereby VACATES the motion hearing set 12 for May 13, 2022. 13 DISCUSSION 14 BFB moves to amend its answer to the Complaint filed by Plaintiff/Counterclaim 15 Defendant SF 2402 LLC, and moves to amend its third-party complaint under Federal 16 Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). ECF Nos. 27, 28. BFB has attached to each motion the 17 amended pleadings it seeks to file. 18 Rule 15(a) provides, in pertinent part, that “a party may amend the party’s pleading 19 only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely 20 given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). In the Ninth Circuit, courts are 21 instructed to grant leave to amend with “extreme liberality.” Morongo Valley Band of 22 Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Hurn v. 23 Retirement Fund Trust of the Plumbing heading and Piping Indus. Of Southern 24 California, 648 F.2d 1252, 1254 (9th Cir. 1981) (“The Supreme Court has instructed the 25 lower federal courts to heed carefully the command of rule 15(a) [] by freely granting 26 leave to amend when justice so requires.”). To determine whether to grant leave to 27 amend, the court looks to five factors: (1) undue delay, (2) bad faith), (3) prejudice to the 28 opposing party, (4) futility of the amendment, and (5) whether the party has previously 1 amended the pleading. Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004). In the 2 analysis, “[n]ot all factors merit equal weight,” and “prejudice to the opposing party . . . 3 carries the greatest weight.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspen, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 4 (9th Cir. 2003); see Genentech, Inc. v. Abbot Labs, 127 F.R.D. 529, 530 (N.D. Cal. 1989) 5 (“The single most important factor is whether prejudice will result to the nonmovant.”). 6 To that end, the party opposing an amendment is required to demonstrate the prejudice 7 they expect to face as a result of any proposed amendment. In re Circuit Breaker Litig., 8 175 F.R.D. 547, 551 (C.D. Cal. 1997). 9 Here, Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant SF 2402 has filed notices of non- 10 opposition to BFB’s motions for leave to amend its pleadings. ECF Nos. 30, 31. 11 Therefore, prejudice—the most significant factor in the Rule 15(a) analysis—is rendered 12 moot. Indeed, SF 2402’s notices essentially provide consent to BFB’s motions. As to the 13 remaining Rule 15(a) factors, the Court finds there is no indication of undue delay, bad 14 faith, or futility. The proposed amended pleadings would be BFB’s first amended answer, 15 and the first amended third-party complaint, which indicates they have not abused Rule 16 15(a)’s liberal standard in this case by making numerous requests to amend. 17 BFB’s proposed amended answer includes two new affirmative defenses, as 18 described in their motion, and included in the proposed amended answer. ECF No. 27-1 19 at 3-4; see ECF No. 27-1 at 15-19 (Ex. A, Proposed Amended Answer). The proposed 20 amended third-party complaint seeks to add eight new third-party defendants “that are 21 responsible in whole or [i]n part for the acts, events, and circumstances” alleged in SF 22 2402’s complaint and “BFB is informed and believes that any injuries and/or damages 23 suffered by [SF 2402] were contributed to by the negligence or other fault of Third-Party 24 Defendants” named in the amended complaint. ECF No. 28 at 2; ECF No. 28 at 5 (Ex. A, 25 Proposed Third-Party Complaint). 26 Because SF 2402 consents to the amended pleadings proposed by BFB through the 27 notices of non-opposition, and there is no indication that the amended pleadings run afoul 28 of the Rule 15(a) factors, the Court hereby GRANTS BFB’s motion to file a first 1 ||amended answer and GRANTS BFB’s motion to file a first amended third-party 2 ||complaint. The Court ORDERS that BFB file their amended pleadings, as they appear in 3 || the instant motions, on or before April 20, 2022. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 ||Dated: April 15, 2022 2 sf 6 Hon. athe Cae 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28