Presas v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York et al

Filing 16

ORDER GRANTING 14 Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint and Accepting Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint as Filed. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 2/27/2015. (Timken, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

COSME PRESAS,

11
12

v.

13
14

WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT
SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, et al.,

15
16

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-01740---SKO

Plaintiff,

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT
AND ACCEPTING PLAINTIFF’S
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AS
FILED
(Doc. 14)

17
18
19

On November 7, 2014, Plaintiff Cosme Presas (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro

20 se and in forma pauperis, filed this action against Defendants Watchtower Bible and Tract Society
21 (“the Society”), Olivia Moreno, Wayne Frazee, and several Doe defendants

(collectively

22 “Defendants”). (Doc. 1.)
23

On February 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint and concurrently

24 filed a Second Amended Complaint. (Docs. 14, 15.) After the first amendment, Plaintiff may
25 amend his pleading only with the opposing parties’ written consent or with the Court’s leave.
26 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The factors commonly considered to determine the propriety of a motion for
27 leave to amend are: (1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, and (4)
28 futility of amendment. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); AmerisourceBergen Corp. v.

1 Dialysis West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006). The Ninth Circuit has instructed that the
2 policy favoring amendments “is to be applied with extreme liberality.” Morongo Band of Mission
3 Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990).
4

It is the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight.

5 Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003).

Absent

6 prejudice, a presumption in favor of granting leave to amend exists under Rule 15(a). Id. Further,
7 undue delay alone is insufficient to justify denial of a motion to amend. Bowles v. Reade, 198
8 F.3d 752, 758 (9th Cir. 1999). Here, Plaintiff has not delayed in seeking to amend his complaint
9 and does not seek to amend in bad faith. Most importantly, no defendant has yet been served, so
10 amendment cannot prejudice any opposing party.
11

The Court hereby accepts Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint and deems it filed as

12 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint concurrently with this Order.
13

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

14

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

15

1.

Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint is GRANTED; and

16

2.

Plaintiff’s concurrently filed Second Amended Complaint is accepted and deemed

17

the operative complaint.

18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 27, 2015

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2