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.)

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