Moore v. Gulamali et al

Filing 27

ORDER granting plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint. The motion hearing set for 12/18/2013 is vacated. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 12/9/2013. (Hernandez, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RONALD MOORE,

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

Plaintiff,

12
13

Case No. 1:13-cv-00686-SAB

v.
ECF NO. 25

14

AMIN GULAMALI, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

On November 12, 2013, Plaintiff Ronald Moore (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion to amend his

18 complaint. (ECF No. 25.) Defendants Amin Gulamali, Nilofer Kabani, Ramzan Gulamali, Irene
19 Gulamali, Dalbir Singh Behla, Jasbinder Singh and Swinder Singh (“Defendants”) filed a
20 statement of non-opposition to the motion on November 21, 2013. (ECF No. 26.)
21

Pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), the Court deems the matter submitted upon the record and

22 briefs on file and vacates the hearing on the motion scheduled for December 18, 2013. For the
23 reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to amend.
24

I.

25

BACKGROUND

26

The original complaint in this action was filed on May 9, 2013. (ECF No. 1.) On August

27 20, 2013, the Court issued a scheduling order setting the deadline to file a motion to amend the
28 pleadings for November 15, 2013. (ECF No. 22.) Plaintiff filed their motion to amend on

1

1 November 12, 2013. (ECF No. 25.)
2

II.

3

LEGAL STANDARDS

4

“The court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

5 15(a)(2). “This policy is ‘to be applied with extreme liberality.’” Eminence Capital, LLC v.
6 Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (quoting Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d
7 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001)). Leave to amend must be given unless reasons exist to deny leave
8 “such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to
9 cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by
10 virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc....” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S.
11 178, 182 (1962) see also AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951
12 (9th Cir. 2006)). “Not all of the factors merit equal weight.... [I]t is the consideration of
13 prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight.” Eminence Capital, LLC, 316
14 F.3d at 1052. “Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman factors,
15 there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Id. (emphasis
16 in original).
17

III.

18

DISCUSSION

19

The Court finds that leave to amend is appropriate.

Defendants have not opposed

20 Plaintiff’s request and none of the Foman factors weigh significantly against granting the
21 request. There is no substantial suggestion of undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on
22 Plaintiff’s part, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue
23 prejudice to Defendants or futility of amendment. Accordingly, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s
24 motion to amend.
25 / / /
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /

2

1

IV.

2

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

3

Based upon the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1.

The hearing scheduled for this motion on December 18, 2013 is VACATED;

5

2.

Plaintiff’s motion to amend is GRANTED (ECF No. 25);

6

3.

Plaintiff shall file their amended complaint within fourteen (14) days; and

7

4.

Defendants shall file a responsive pleading within fourteen (14) days after the
amended complaint is filed.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
10
11

Dated:

December 9, 2013
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3