Canatella v. Donovan et al

Filing 68

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT RE 62 . (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

RICHARD A. CANATELLA,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
Re: Dkt. No. 62

10

REVERSE MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS
INC, et al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 13-cv-05937-HSG

Defendants.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a third amended complaint.
Dkt. No. 62. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.
I.

LEGAL STANDARD
“A party seeking a second or successive amendment ‘may amend its pleading only with

the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.’” KFD Enterprises, Inc. v. City of
Eureka, No. C-08-4571 MMC, 2011 WL 1750783, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2011) (quoting Fed.
R. Civ. P. 15(a)).
Granting or denying leave to amend a complaint is in the Court’s discretion, Cal. v. Neville
Chem. Co., 358 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir. 2004). “In exercising this discretion, a court must be
guided by the underlying purpose of Rule 15 to facilitate decision on the merits, rather than on the

22

pleadings or technicalities.” United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981). “Rule 15

23

advises the court that ‘leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.’” Eminence Capital,

24

LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). “This policy is to be

25

applied with extreme liberality.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

26
27
28

When considering whether to grant leave, courts examine these factors: “(1) bad faith, (2)
undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of amendment, and (5) whether

1

plaintiff has previously amended his complaint.” Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe v. United States,

2

90 F.3d 351, 355-56 (9th Cir. 1996) (per curiam).

3

II.

ANALYSIS
The Court finds that leave to amend is appropriate in this action. Although the case has

4

been pending for several months, the proceeding remains in the early stages of litigation. The

6

parties have not incurred significant costs, discovery has yet to begin, and dispositive motions

7

have not been filed. See, e.g., Zivkovic v. So. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir.

8

2002) (affirming denial of plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend where amendment would have

9

added “causes of action which would have required further discovery, which was to close five

10

days after the motion to amend was filed”); Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Solutions, Inc.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

5

194 F.3d 980, 986 (9th Cir. 1999) (stating that “[a] need to reopen discovery and therefore delay

12

the proceedings supports a district court’s finding of prejudice from a delayed motion to amend

13

the complaint”).
Although Plaintiff previously amended its complaint, the Court finds no dilatory motive on

14
15

Plaintiff’s part in seeking leave to amend. See Estate of Macias v. Waste Mgmt. Holdings, Inc.,

16

No. C 14-01532 WHA, 2014 WL 2938366, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 27, 2014) (granting leave to

17

amend although plaintiff had previously amended its complaint where the record indicated that

18

plaintiffs had not acted in bad faith and there was no undue delay); Mitchell v. City of Pittsburg,

19

No. C 09-00794 SI, 2009 WL 3710615, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2009). Moreover, any risk of

20

prejudice to opposing party is low, given the similarity between the previously alleged claims and

21

the proposed claims to be added. See Serpa v. SBC Telecomms., Inc., 318 F.Supp.2d 865, 872

22

(N.D. Cal. 2004) (finding no substantial prejudice where “defendants need not radically change

23

their litigation strategy in order to accommodate the proposed ERISA claims”).

24

\\

25

\\

26

\\

27

\\

28

\\
2

1

In light of Rule 15’s liberal standard, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to

2

file a third amended complaint. Plaintiff should file any amended complaint within three days of

3

this order.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 2/9/2016

6
7
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3