Farris v. Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois

Filing 15

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 11/30/2017 GRANTING 11 Request for Leave to Amend due within 14 days. Immediately thereafter, the parties will proceed to the courts VDRP. The status conference set for 12/8/2017 is VACATED. (Hunt, G)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAYMOND FARRIS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 No. 2:17-cv-01237-KJM-AC v. ORDER SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff sues his insurance provider, claiming it improperly denied him coverage 19 after his motorcycle was stolen. ECF No. 1-1. On November 9, 2017, plaintiff moved for leave 20 to file a first amended complaint to add an insurance broker as a defendant. ECF No. 11-1 at 2. 21 Defendants have not opposed this motion.1 As explained below, the court GRANTS this motion. 22 //// 23 //// 24 25 26 27 28 1 Defendants are reminded of the requirement in the Local Rules that they serve a notice of non-opposition when a motion is not opposed. See L.R. 230(c). Future violations of the local rules, or any applicable rule or order of the court may be met with an order to show cause as to why sanctions should not issue. 1 1 The federal rules mandate that leave to amend “be freely given when justice so 2 requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “This policy is to be applied with extreme liberality.” Eminence 3 Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation and quotation marks 4 omitted). Before granting leave, a court considers any potential bad faith, delay, or futility 5 regarding the proposed amendment, and the potential prejudice to the opposing party. Foman v. 6 Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); see also Smith v. Pac. Prop. Dev. Co., 358 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th 7 Cir. 2004). “The party opposing amendment bears the burden of showing prejudice.” DCD 8 Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987). Absent prejudice, there is a strong 9 presumption in favor of granting leave to amend. Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. 10 This is plaintiff’s first request for leave to amend. Considering Rule 15(a)’s liberal 11 amendment policy, the early phase of this litigation, and the absence of any opposition, the court 12 GRANTS plaintiff’s request. The amended complaint is due within fourteen days. 13 Immediately thereafter, the parties will proceed to the court’s Voluntary Dispute 14 Resolution Program (“VDRP”), as previously referred. See Oct. 19, 2017 Minute Order, ECF 15 No. 9. The status conference set for December 8, 2017 is hereby VACATED and will be reset as 16 needed should VDRP prove unsuccessful. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 This order resolves ECF No. 11. 19 DATED: November 30, 2017. 20 21 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?