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)

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