Fleming v. Clark

Filing 94

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman granting (74) Motion to Amend/Correct ; Plaintiff is required to E-FILE the amended document in case 3:09-cv-01613-BZ; granting (24) Motion to Amend/Correct ; Plaintiff is required to E-FILE the amended document in case 3:09-cv-04757-BZ (bzsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/14/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. NADIA CLARK, et al., Defendant(s). v. NADIA CLARK, et al., Defendant(s). VICTOR JONES, Plaintiff(s), NOVENDER FLEMING, Plaintiff(s), ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

No. C09-1613 BZ

and Consolidated Case

No. C09-4757 BZ ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Before the Court is plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. Because defendants have failed to

show any prejudice, undue delay, bad faith, or futility, the motion is GRANTED in its entirety. "In determining whether amendments are appropriate, courts commonly consider four factors: 1) bad faith of the moving party, 2) delay in the proceedings, 3) prejudice to the 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

nonmoving party, and 4)futility of the amendment."

Genentech,

Inc. v. Abbot Laboratories, 127 F.R.D. 529, 530 (N.D.Cal. 1989) citing DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987). "The party opposing amendment bears the Board

burden of showing why amendment should not be granted." of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche

Molecular Sys., Inc., 2008 WL 624771, at *6 (N.D.Cal. 2008). Here, none of the factors weigh in favor of denying the motion. Though defendants have alleged bad faith, they have

neither cited authority nor submitted any evidence of bad faith. Further, this amendment will not cause any substantial

delay in the proceedings, as the June trial date was vacated on APRIL 5, 2010. Doc. No. 82. Defendants argue that they As fact

are prejudiced but decline to articulate how.

discovery will remain closed and the time to file dispositive motions has been extended, I find that the amendment will not prejudice the defendants. Finally, defendants do not argue

that the amendment is futile. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED as follows: 1. 2. I find no need for further argument. Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended Plaintiffs SHALL file an amended Defendants SHALL file an answer

complaint is GRANTED.

complaint by APRIL 20, 2010. by MAY 10, 2010. 3. Dates:

Trial Date: Monday, MARCH 14, 2011, 8:30 a.m. Pretrial Conference: Tuesday, FEBRUARY 22, 2011,4:00 p.m. Last Day for Expert Discovery: JUNE 18, 2010 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2010.

4.

Dispositive Motions:

Defendants to file by June 23, 2010. Plaintiffs to file opposition and any cross motion by JULY 12, 2010. Defendants to file reply and opposition to any motion plaintiffs file by JULY 26, 2010. Plaintiffs to file reply on their motion by AUGUST 2,

Hearing AUGUST 31, 2010, AT 1:30 P.M., in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102. The parties are reminded to comply with the Court's procedures for summary judgment motions found in the earlier Pretrial Scheduling Order. 5. settles. Dated: April 14, 2010 Bernard Zimmerman United States Magistrate Judge
G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\FLEMING v. CLARK\ORD GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND.wpd

The parties SHALL notify the court if the case

3