Donovin Last v. M-I, L.L.C.

Filing 21

ORDER GRANTING #12 Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Answer, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 06/02/2021. (Maldonado, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 DONOVIN LAST, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 17 v. No. 1:20-cv-01205-DAD-JLT ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED ANSWER M-I, L.L.C., (Doc. No. 12) Defendant. This matter is before the court on the unopposed motion for leave to file a first amended 18 answer filed by defendant M-I, L.L.C. on February 26, 2021. (Doc. No. 12.) In particular, 19 defendant seeks to file a first amended answer to add a single affirmative defense. (Id.; see also 20 Doc. No. 12-1 (proposed amended answer)). On April 2, 2021, plaintiff filed a statement of non- 21 opposition to defendant’s pending motion. (Doc. No. 14.) Pursuant to General Order No. 617 22 addressing the public health emergency posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, defendant’s motion 23 was taken under submission on the papers. (Doc. No. 13.) 24 “A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within: (A) 21 days after 25 serving it or (B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after 26 service if a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), 27 whichever is earlier.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Otherwise, a party must seek leave of court to 28 amend a pleading or receive the opposing party’s written consent. Id. 1 1 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that leave to amend pleadings “shall be 2 freely given when justice so requires.” Id. Nevertheless, leave to amend need not be granted 3 when the amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces 4 an undue delay in litigation; or (4) is futile. See AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist W. Inc., 5 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757 (9th Cir. 1999)). 6 “Prejudice to the opposing party is the most important factor.” Jackson v. Bank of Haw., 902 7 F.3d 1385, 1397 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research Inc., 401 U.S. 8 321, 330–31 (1971)). “The party opposing leave to amend bears the burden of showing 9 prejudice.” Serpa v. SBC Telecomms., 318 F. Supp. 2d 865, 870 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (citing DCD 10 Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987)). 11 Here, by filing a statement of non-opposition to defendant’s motion for leave to file a first 12 amended answer, plaintiff has effectively provided defendant with his written consent. (Doc. No. 13 14.) In addition, by not opposing defendant’s motion, plaintiff essentially concedes that he is not 14 prejudiced by the court granting defendant leave to amend its answer. 15 Accordingly: 16 1. Defendant’s unopposed motion for leave to file a first amended answer (Doc. No. 12) 17 18 is granted; and 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file the proposed first amended answer 19 20 21 (Doc. No. 12-1) on the docket captioned as the first amended answer. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 2, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?