Almanza v. Credit One Bank, N.A.
Filing
28
ORDER Granting Plaintiff's 22 Motion to Amend, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/6/2018. (Gaumnitz, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
YOLANDA ALMANZA,
12
13
14
15
No. 1:17-cv-00830-DAD-SKO
Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO AMEND
v.
CREDIT ONE BANK, N.A. and DOES 125,
(Doc. No. 22)
Defendants.
16
17
18
CREDIT ONE BANK, N.A.,
19
20
21
22
Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
PETER ALMANZA and ROES 1-25,
Third-Party Defendants.
23
24
This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s motion to amend. On March 6, 2018, this
25
matter came before the court for hearing. Attorney Yitzchak Zelman appeared on behalf of
26
plaintiff Yolanda Almanza. Attorney David Kaminski appeared on behalf of defendant/third-
27
party plaintiff Credit One Bank, N.A. Having considered the briefing and heard from counsel, the
28
court will grant plaintiff’s motion.
1
1
2
BACKGROUND
In her first amended complaint, plaintiff alleges as follows. Plaintiff alleges that she has
3
been receiving incessant wrong number calls placed by defendant, as well as defendant’s
4
unidentified third-party calling vendors. (Doc. No. 13 (“FAC”) at ¶ 1.) Specifically, plaintiff
5
alleges a campaign by defendant of attempting to communicate with plaintiff via the use of an
6
automated telephone dialing system and prerecorded messages, which has persisted for the past
7
four years. (Id. at ¶ 11.) Upon answering these calls, defendant’s representatives would ask for
8
an individual named “Peter,” although plaintiff is the sole user of her cellular phone number. (Id.
9
at ¶ 12, 13.) Defendant used multiple phone numbers to make these calls, and plaintiff confirmed
10
that these calls were made by defendant by calling those numbers and being connected with an
11
automated answering service stating “Welcome to Credit One Bank.” (Id. at ¶ 15.) Plaintiff
12
states that she never gave defendant her prior, express permission to call her cell phone via the
13
use of an automated telephone dialing system or prerecorded voice, and expressly directed
14
defendant to stop doing so on numerous occasions. (Id. at ¶¶ 18, 19.) However, these calls did
15
not stop, causing the plaintiff to be harassed, stressed, frustrated, and annoyed. (Id. at ¶ 23.)
16
The FAC alleges three causes of action. First, it alleges a violation of the Telephone
17
Consumer Protection Act (the “TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. Second, it alleges a violation of
18
the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “Rosenthal Act”), 31 Cal. Civ. Code
19
§ 1788.17. Third, it alleges common law invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion. On
20
January 15, 2018, plaintiff filed the instant motion to amend, seeking to add as defendants Expert
21
Global Solutions Financial Care, Inc. (“Expert Global”) and Convergent Outsourcing, Inc.
22
(“Convergent”). Defendant has not opposed this motion and its non-opposition was confirmed at
23
the hearing on the pending motion.
24
25
LEGAL STANDARD
“A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within: (A) 21 days after
26
serving it or (B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after
27
service if a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f),
28
whichever is earlier.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Otherwise, a party must seek leave of court to
2
1
amend a pleading or receive the opposing party’s written consent. Id.
2
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that leave to amend pleadings “shall be
3
freely given when justice so requires.” Id. Nevertheless, leave to amend need not be granted
4
when the amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces
5
an undue delay in litigation; or (4) is futile. See AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist W. Inc.,
6
465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757 (9th Cir. 1999)).
7
“Prejudice to the opposing party is the most important factor.” Jackson v. Bank of Haw., 902
8
F.3d 1385, 1397 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research Inc., 401 U.S.
9
321, 330–31 (1971)). “The party opposing leave to amend bears the burden of showing
10
prejudice.” Serpa v. SBC Telecomms., 318 F. Supp. 2d 865, 870 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (citing DCD
11
Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987)); see Clarke v. Upton, 703 F. Supp.
12
2d 1037, 1041 (E.D. Cal. 2010); see also Alzheimer’s Inst. of Am. v. Elan Corp., 274 F.R.D. 272,
13
276 (N.D. Cal. 2011).
14
Further, in determining futility, “[t]he proper test to be applied when determining the legal
15
sufficiency of a proposed amendment is identical to the one used when considering the
16
sufficiency of a pleading challenged under Rule 12(b)(6) or (f): if there is no set of facts which
17
could be proved under the amendment to the pleadings which would constitute a valid and
18
sufficient claim or defense, leave should be denied.” Baker v. Pac. Far E. Lines, Inc., 451 F.
19
Supp. 84, 89 (N.D. Cal. 1978) (citing 3 Moore’s Federal Practice P. 15.08(4) (2d ed. 1974)).
20
Amendment is therefore proper “if the deficiencies can be cured with additional allegations that
21
are ‘consistent with the challenged pleading’ and that do not contradict the allegations in the
22
original complaint.’” United States v. Corinthian Colls., 655 F.3d 984, 955 (9th Cir. 2011)
23
(citing Reddy v. Litton Indus., Inc., 912 F.2d 291, 296–97 (9th Cir. 1990)).
24
DISCUSSION
25
As the parties have proceeded through discovery, plaintiff was made aware of the
26
identities of several third-party dialer vendors retained by defendants to place the phone calls at
27
issue in this case. Plaintiff therefore seeks to amend its complaint and add those companies as
28
defendants. Although plaintiff’s motion is unopposed, the court will nonetheless examine the
3
1
four factors discussed above to determine whether leave to amend is warranted in this case.
2
A.
Prejudice to the Opposing Party
“Absent prejudice, there is a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to
3
4
amend.” Serpa, 318 F. Supp. 2d at 870 (citing Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d
5
1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003)). Moreover, the party opposing amendment bears the burden of
6
showing such prejudice. Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052 (citing DCD Programs, 833 F.2d at
7
186). As noted, defendant has not opposed this motion. Accordingly, the court finds no basis to
8
conclude that defendant would be in any way prejudiced by granting leave to amend.
9
B.
Bad Faith
10
The court next examines whether plaintiff’s motion to amend was made in bad faith. In
11
support of its contention that it has acted in good faith, plaintiff attaches to its motion a series of
12
emails between plaintiff’s counsel and defendant’s counsel. In those emails, plaintiff’s counsel
13
advised defendant’s counsel on December 18, 2017 that it wished to amend its complaint to add
14
additional parties to its complaint. (Doc. No. 22-3 at 1.) At the request of defendant’s counsel,
15
plaintiff’s counsel then prepared a stipulation for defendant to review and sign, and also gave
16
defendant an opportunity to review the proposed amended complaint. (Doc. No. 22-4 at 1–4.)
17
Despite these efforts by plaintiff’s counsel, defendant has apparently not agreed to plaintiff’s
18
proposed stipulation.
19
Far from acting in bad faith, the court finds that plaintiff provided defendant with ample
20
notice of its intent to amend its complaint, and is doing so solely to include the proper parties in
21
this litigation. The court finds that the instant motion was not made in bad faith.
22
C.
23
Undue Delay
The third factor that the court must consider is whether granting leave to amend would
24
cause undue delay in the litigation. In answering this question a court will “not merely ask
25
whether a motion was filed within the period of time allotted by the district court in a Rule 16
26
scheduling order.” AmerisourceBergen Corp., 465 F.3d at 953. Instead, a court must also inquire
27
“whether the moving party knew or should have known the facts and theories raised by the
28
amendment in the original pleading.” Jackson, 902 F.2d at 1388.
4
Plaintiff’s motion fully complied with the scheduling order in this case. The instant
1
2
motion was filed on January 15, 2018, which was the deadline for the parties to request leave to
3
amend the pleadings. (See Doc. No. 15 at 2.) Moreover, there is no reason to believe that
4
plaintiff knew or should have known the identities of the corporations it now seeks to name in an
5
amended complaint, since defendant did not disclose the identities of those corporations in its
6
initial disclosures under Rule 26. (See Doc. No. 22-6.) The court therefore finds that granting
7
leave to amend would not cause undue delay in this case.
8
D.
9
Futility
Finally, the court addresses whether leave to amend would be futile. “An amendment is
10
futile when ‘no set of facts can be proved under the amendment to the pleadings that would
11
constitute a valid and sufficient claim or defense.’” Mo. ex rel. Koster v. Harris, 847 F.3d 646,
12
656 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Miller v. Rykoff–Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 1988)).
13
The court has reviewed the proposed amended complaint and finds that leave to amend
14
would not be futile. The allegations against Expert Global and Convergent appear to be
15
indistinguishable from the allegations already made against defendant Credit One, since the
16
proposed complaint alleges that defendant Credit One hired Expert Global and Convergent to
17
place the phone calls at issue in this case. (Doc. No. 22-7 at ¶ 30.) Amending the complaint
18
would therefore not be futile.
19
CONCLUSION
20
For these reasons, plaintiff’s unopposed motion to amend (Doc. No. 22) is granted.
21
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
March 6, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
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?