Soares v. Lorono et al

Filing 111


Download PDF
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

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?