Dolores Martinez v. Navy League of the United States
ORDER by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: granting 49 Navys Leagues Motion for Leave to Amend Answer. Navy League shall file an amended answer no later than Tuesday, May 13, 2014. The Court also notes that this case has been languishing in the pleading stages for six months due to a considerable amount of motion practice. The Court is familiar with the facts and issues of this case and believes that the parties time would be better spent attempting settlement. Therefore, notwithstanding the settlem ent conference deadline in the Scheduling and Case Management Order, the Court ORDERS the parties to contact the Magistrate Judge assigned to this action within 7 days of this Order to schedule a mandatory settlement conference for the first available date on the Magistrate Judges calendar. (lc). Modified on 4/28/2014. (lc).
United States District Court
Central District of California
NAVY LEAGUE OF THE UNITED
Case No. 2:13-cv-5533-ODW(FFMx)
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWER 
AND SETTING DEADLINE FOR
Before the Court is Defendant Navy League of the United States’ Motion for
Leave to Amend Answer filed on April 8, 2014. (ECF No. 49.) In the Motion, Navy
League seeks leave to amend its original Answer, filed on February 19, 2014, to add
an affirmative defense under California Civil Code section 846. Plaintiff Dolores
Martinez, who is representing herself in this action, filed a timely Opposition to the
Motion. (ECF No. 53.) Having carefully considered the papers filed in support of
and in opposition to the Motion, the Court deems the matter appropriate for decision
without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7–15.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) instructs courts to “freely give leave to
amend when justice so requires.” The decision whether to permit leave to amend rests
in the sound discretion of the trial court. California v. Neville Chem. Co., 358 F.3d
661, 673 (9th Cir. 2004). In determining whether leave to amend should be granted,
at least four factors are considered: (1) undue delay; (2) bad faith or dilatory motive;
(3) prejudice to the opposing party; and (4) futility of amendment. Foman v. Davis,
371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Ditto v. McCurdy, 510 F.3d 1070, 1079 (9th Cir. 2007).
Here, the Court finds no undue delay in Navy League seeking leave to amend
its answer. This Motion was filed less than two months after the answer was filed and
the deadline to amend pleadings is still months away. The Court also finds no
evidence of bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of Navy League in seeking leave
to amend. The fact that this case remains in its early stages also suggests that
amending the Answer would cause no prejudice to Martinez. Finally, amendment
would not be futile since Navy League is seeking to add what appears to be a viable
affirmative defense. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Navy’s League’s Motion for
Leave to Amend Answer. (ECF No. 49.) Navy League shall file an amended answer
no later than Tuesday, May 13, 2014.
The Court also notes that this case has been languishing in the pleading stages
for six months due to a considerable amount of motion practice. The Court is familiar
with the facts and issues of this case and believes that the parties’ time would be better
spent attempting settlement. Therefore, notwithstanding the settlement conference
deadline in the Scheduling and Case Management Order, the Court ORDERS the
parties to contact the Magistrate Judge assigned to this action within 7 days of this
Order to schedule a mandatory settlement conference for the first available date on the
Magistrate Judge’s calendar.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
April 28, 2014
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?