Winans v. Emeritus Corporation

Filing 90

ORDER by Judge Samuel Conti granting 85 motion for leave to file amended complaint. (sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/3/2015).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
Northern District of California

United States District Court

9

11
12
13

ARVILLE WINANS, by and through
his guardian ad litem, RENEE
MOULTON, on his own behalf and on
behalf of others similarly
situated,

14
15

Plaintiff,
v.

16
17
18

EMERITUS CORPORATION and DOES 1
through 100,
Defendants.

19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 13-cv-03962-SC
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED
COMPLAINT

20
21

Now before the Court is Plaintiff Arville Winans's unopposed

22

motion, ECF No. 85 ("Mot."), for leave to file an amended

23

complaint.

24

motion is appropriate for resolution without oral argument under

25

Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).

26

amend is GRANTED.

See ECF No. 88 ("Notice of Non-Opposition").

The

For the reasons set forth below, leave to

27

This case alleges that Defendant Emeritus Corporation

28

("Emeritus") violated California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act,

1

Unfair Competition Law, and Elder Abuse Act by, among other things,

2

falsely representing that Emeritus' assisted living facilities in

3

California had sufficient staffing to provide the level of care

4

promised.

5

In this motion, Winans seeks leave to amend to add injunctive

6

relief allegations, add a new plaintiff and additional defendant,

7

and add allegations about Emeritus' knowledge of consumers'

8

expectations in selecting an assisted living facility.

9

argues the amendment is proper under Federal Rule of Civil

Winans

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

Procedure 15(a)(2), which the Ninth Circuit has said should be

11

interpreted freely in favor of amendment.

12

v. Apseon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003).

13

significant prejudice, bad faith, undue delay, or futility of

14

amendment "there exists a presumption . . . in favor of granting

15

leave to amend."

16

See Eminence Cap., LLC
Absent

Id.

Here, the Court finds no evidence of prejudice, bad faith,

17

undue delay or futility of amendment, and thus leave to amend is

18

GRANTED.

19

the 'touchstone of the inquiry under [R]ule 15(a)," and the party

20

opposing amendment "bears the burden of showing prejudice."

21

1052 (quoting Lone Star Ladies Inv. Club v. Schlotzsky's Inc., 238

22

F.3d 363, 368 (5th Cir. 2001)); DCD Progs., Ltd. v. Leighton, 833

23

F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987).

24

prejudice is Emeritus, however Emeritus declined to oppose the

25

motion.

26

necessary given that Rule 15 allows parties to simply stipulate to

27

an amendment?

28

This should be unsurprising given that "[p]rejudice is

Id. at

Here, the party that could claim

That raises the question: why was this motion even

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

Based on the emails provided by Plaintiffs (and not

2

1

contradicted by Defendant), there appears to be no good reason for

2

Emeritus' decision.

3

stipulation to amendment and Emeritus's counsel simply stated that

4

"[a]lthough Emeritus will not stipulate to the filing of an amended

5

complaint, we will not oppose a Rule 15 motion . . . ."

6

85-1 ("Colby Decl.") Ex. 3.

7

even if he had, the Court cannot imagine a reasonable one -- given

8

the allocation of the burdens on a Rule 15 amendment, refusing to

9

stipulate but not opposing the motion means that leave will nearly

On the contrary, Plaintiffs sought a

ECF No.

Counsel did not provide a reason, and

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

always (and certainly in cases like this) be granted.

11

only result of forcing Plaintiffs to file a motion was imposing the

12

cost of preparing the motion on Plaintiffs and delaying proceedings

13

for more than a month while this motion navigated through the

14

Court's (already busy) docket.

15

"[i]n the future, failure to stipulate without good reason will

16

subject the non-cooperative party to sanctions."

17

LLC v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Co., No. 3:13-cv-031124-EMC (N.D. Cal.

18

June 26, 2014), Dkt. No. 38; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1927.

19

Instead, the

The Court reminds the parties that

Parklyn Bay Co.

For the reasons set forth above, leave to amend is GRANTED.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23
24

April 3, 2015
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28

3