(PC) Felix v. Cazores, et al.
Filing
30
ORDER GRANTING 25 Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 1/28/2025. (Deputy Clerk JPX)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
TYLO JEROME FELIX, JR.,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
C. CAZORES, et al.,
15
Case No.: 1:24-cv-00332-JLT-SKO
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
AMENDED ANSWER
(Doc. 25)
Defendants.
16
Plaintiff Tylo Jerome Felix, Jr., is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to
17
18
42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s constitutional claims against Defendants
19
Cazores, Smotherman, Diaz, Velasquez, and Arreazola.
20
I.
21
The Court issued its Discovery and Scheduling Order on August 23, 2024. (Doc. 17.) The
22
RELEVANT BACKGROUND
deadline to amend pleadings was set for December 21, 2024. (Id.)
On December 20, 2024, Defendants filed their motion for leave to file an amended
23
24
answer. (Doc. 25.) Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion and the time to do so has
25
passed.1
26
27
28
1
Plaintiff's failure to file an opposition or otherwise respond to Defendants’ motion to amend the answer
and proposed amended answer is deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion and the
Court therefore considers the motion unopposed. Local Rule 230(l).
1
II.
DISCUSSION
2
Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend the party's
3
pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days after serving it. Otherwise, a party may amend
4
only by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse party, and leave shall be freely
5
given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “Rule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to
6
amend shall be freely given when justice so requires.” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist
7
West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation & quotation omitted). However, courts
8
“need not grant leave to amend where the amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is
9
sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue delay in litigation; or (4) is futile.” Id.
10
Defendants seek leave to amend their answer to assert a statute of limitations affirmative
11
defense. (Doc. 25.) Defendants assert good cause exists to allow the amended answer because,
12
after filing their initial answer, further factual investigation revealed the potential availability of
13
the statute of limitations defense. (Id. at 3-4.) Defendants note Plaintiff filed this action on March
14
20, 2024, asserting allegations arising in June 2019. (Id. at 4.) Defendants contend Plaintiff will
15
not be prejudiced by the amendment because their motion is timely and Plaintiff, who is
16
presumably aware of “when his claims accrued and when he first pled facts related to those
17
claims,” may still conduct discovery concerning the proposed affirmative defense. (Id.)
18
Defendants explain the “primary attorney assigned to this case” is on extended leave,2 (id), and
19
when newly assigned defense counsel determined that a statute of limitations defense may be
20
available, she moved for leave to file an amended answer without delay.3 (Id.) Defendants’
21
motion is accompanied by the proposed amended answer. (Id. at 7-12.)
22
Considering the relevant factors, the Court finds no evidence of prejudice to Plaintiff or
23
bad faith by Defendants. Nor is there any evidence of an undue delay in litigation, or futility.
24
AmerisourceBergen Corp., 465 F.3d at 951. Defendants’ motion to amend was filed prior to
25
expiration of the deadline for filing a motion for leave to amend and is thus timely. Defense
26
27
2
The answer filed July 1, 2024, was prepared and filed by Ravpreet Bhangoo.
28
3
The instant motion was prepared and filed by Janet Nah Chen.
2
1
counsel acted promptly after conducting further investigation and learning of the potential statute
2
of limitations defense. A review of the proposed amended answer confirms it asserts one
3
additional affirmative defense concerning the statute of limitations. (Cf. Doc. 11 to Doc. 25 at 7-
4
12.) Finally, as the motion is unopposed and discovery has now been stayed pending resolution of
5
Defendants’ summary judgment motion, the Court finds no evidence of prejudice to Plaintiff.
6
(See Doc. 28.) As noted in the order issued January 17, 2025, the “deadlines for the completion of
7
discovery and for the filing of dispositive motions … will be reimposed following final resolution
8
of Defendants’ summary judgment motion concerning exhaustion, if necessary.” (Id. at 3.)
9
III.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
10
For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY ORDERS:
11
1. Defendants’ motion for leave to file an amended answer (Doc. 25) is GRANTED; and
12
2. Within seven (7) days of the date of this order, Defendants SHALL FILE the
proposed amended answer to Plaintiff’s second amended complaint.
13
14
15
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
January 28, 2025
.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?