Calvert v. Omini Medical, LLC, et al.,

Filing 18

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 08/08/17 ORDERING that the 9 Motion to Amend the Complaint is GRANTED; the second amended complaint shall be filed within 7 days. (Benson, A.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEBRA CALVERT, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 No. 2:17-cv-00722-KJM-DB Plaintiff, v. ORDER OMNI MEDICAL, LLC, ROGER B.STEPHENS, M.D., A CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, DR.JAMES M. KIM, individually, DR. SHARON G.LEANO, individually, and Does 1-25. Defendants. 19 20 Plaintiff moves to file a second amended complaint. ECF No. 9. Her complaint 21 claims the owner of a medical facility violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. Id. Her 22 operative complaint erroneously lists former defendant Omni Medical, LLC as the property 23 owner. See First Am. Compl., ECF No. 4. The proposed second amended complaint changes the 24 property owner’s name to CPI-Omni Medical, a Delaware Limited Liability Company. See Ex. A 25 to ECF No. 9. Omni Medical, LLC opposed the motion, arguing plaintiff’s amendment did not 26 dismiss Omni Medical, LLC from the lawsuit. Opp’n, ECF No. 12. A week later, plaintiff 27 28 1 1 dismissed Omni Medical, LLC, with prejudice. Voluntary Dismissal, ECF No. 15; Order 2 Confirming Dismissal, ECF No. 16. No remaining defendant opposes the motion. 3 The federal rules mandate that leave to amend “be freely given when justice so 4 requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “This policy is to be applied with extreme liberality.” Eminence 5 Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation and quotation marks 6 omitted). Before granting leave, a court considers any potential bad faith, delay, or futility 7 regarding the proposed amendment, and the potential prejudice to the opposing party. Foman v. 8 Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); see also Smith v. Pac. Prop. Dev. Co., 358 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th 9 Cir. 2004). “The party opposing amendment bears the burden of showing prejudice.” DCD 10 Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987). Absent prejudice, there is a strong 11 presumption in favor of granting leave to amend. Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. 12 Here, plaintiff attaches to her motion a redlined version of the proposed amended 13 complaint. ECF No. 9, Ex. A. The only substantive alteration is changing “Omni Medical, LLC” 14 to “CPI-Omni Medical, a Delaware Limited Liability Company.” Id. Because the remaining 15 defendants do not oppose this motion, and because the court is aware of no prejudice or delay that 16 would result from allowing this amendment, plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. The second 17 amended complaint shall be filed within seven days of this order. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 This resolves ECF No. 9. 20 DATED: August 8, 2017. 21 22 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?