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