Soares v. Lorono et al

Filing 111

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT 100 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 4/15/2013)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

PAUL FAIRFAX SOARES,

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

No. C 12-05979 SI

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
COMPLAINT

v.
JEFFREY LORONO, et al.,
Defendants.
/

14
Pro se plaintiff Soares has filed a motion for leave to file a first amended complaint. Pursuant
15
to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument and
16
therefore VACATES the hearing currently scheduled for April 26, 2012. Having considered the papers
17
of the parties, and for good cause appearing, the Court hereby GRANTS plaintiff’s motion.
18
Once the time for amending a complaint as a matter of course has passed, further amendments
19
may only be made with leave of the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Rule 15(a)(2) provides that
20
“[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires,” which represents a public policy strongly
21
in favor of amendments. See Chodos v. West Publishing Co., 292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002) (“It
22
is generally our policy to permit amendment with ‘extreme liberality’ . . . .”). “When considering a
23
motion for leave to amend, a district court must consider whether the proposed amendment results from
24
undue delay, is made in bad faith, will cause prejudice to the opposing party, or is a dilatory tactic.” Id.
25
A court may also deny leave to amend “if amendment of the complaint would be futile.” Gordon v. City
26
of Oakland, 627 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010).
27
Plaintiff Soares filed his initial complaint on May 16, 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the
28

1

District of New Jersey. On November 16, 2012, the case was transferred to the Northern District of

2

California. Defendants have already answered the initial complaint. Plaintiff’s amended complaint adds

3

several new defendants, but no new causes of action. Plaintiffs declares that in the amended complaint

4

he “corrected numerical errors” and “sought to clarify allegations.” Soares Decl. ¶ 3. Plaintiff has not

5

previously amended his complaint, there is no other currently pending motion, and defendants have not

6

opposed the motion to amend the complaint.

7

The Court finds that the motion to amend the complaint was not made in bad faith and will not

8

cause prejudice to the opposing party. Pursuant to the generous policy permitting amendments, the

9

Court finds that allowing plaintiff to amend his complaint for the first time would be in the interest of

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

justice.
For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion to
file an amended complaint.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

Dated: April 15, 2013
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2