United States of America v. Capriotti et al

Filing 31

ORDER Granting 17 Motion to File Amended Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 9/23/11. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
9
10
Plaintiff,
11
v.
12
CHRIS CAPRIOTTI, et al.,
13
14
Defendants.
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:11cv0847 — DLB
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FILE
AMENDED COMPLAINT

(Document 17)

16
Plaintiff United States of America (“Plaintiff”) filed this Motion for Leave to File a First
17
Amended Complaint on September 9, 2011. The Court deemed the matter suitable for decision
18
without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g).
19
BACKGROUND
20
Plaintiff filed the instant complaint to reduce federal tax assessments to judgment and
21
foreclose federal tax liens on real property on May 23, 2011. The tax assessments at issue are
22
against Defendants Chris A. Capriotti and Carrie L. Capriotti, who are named individually and as
23
Trustees of The Chris and Carrie Capriotti Family Trust. The complaint also names Oakview
24
Trust by Global Business Services as Trustee and the California Franchise Tax Board as
25
Defendants.
26
On July 20, 2011, Defendant California Franchise Tax Board filed its answer.
27
28
1

1
2
3
4

Defendants Chris and Carrie Capriotti, appearing pro se, filed an answer on August 30,
2011.
On September 7, 2011, Plaintiff requested entry of default as to The Chris and Carrie

5

Capriotti Family Trust. The Clerk entered default on September 12, 2011.

6

Defendant Oakview Trust filed its answer on September 14, 2011.

7

By filing an amended complaint, Plaintiff seeks to clarify the identity of the current

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

trustee for Oakview Trust.
No oppositions have been filed.
DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 15(a) provides that leave to amend “shall be freely
given when justice so requires.” The United States Supreme Court has stated:
[i]n the absence of any apparent or declared reason – such as undue delay, bad faith or
dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by
amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of
allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc. – the leave sought should, as the
rules require, be “freely given.”

16

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). The Ninth Circuit has summarized these factors to

17

include the following: (1) undue delay; (2) bad faith; (3) prejudice to the opponent; and (4)

18

futility of amendment. Loehr v. Ventura County Cmty. Coll. Dist., 743 F.2d 1310, 1319 (9th Cir.

19

1984). Granting or denial of leave to amend rests in the sound discretion of the trial court.

20

Swanson v. United States Forest Serv., 87 F.3d 339, 343 (9th Cir. 1996). Despite the policy

21

favoring amendment under Rule 15, leave to amend may be denied if the proposed amendment is

22

futile or would be subject to dismissal. Saul v. United States, 928 F.2d 829, 843 (9th Cir. 1991).

23

Plaintiff seeks to clarify that the name of the current trustee of Oakview Trust is Global

24

Administrative Services, LLC. Investigation subsequent to filing the complaint revealed that

25

Global Administrative Services, LLC, is the purported successor in interest to Global Business

26

Services, LLC. Declaration of Aaron M. Bailey, ¶ 10.

27
28

Plaintiff’s request, which is not opposed, is not made for improper reasons and will not
cause prejudice to the parties. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff SHALL
2

1

file an amended complaint within ten (10) days of the date of service of this record. As the

2

amendment does not change any material facts or allegations, the parties do not need to file new

3

answers.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
3b142a

September 23, 2011

/s/ Dennis L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3