Rajala v. Sonoma County Go Local Cooperative, Incorporated et al

Filing 59

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER by Judge Jon S. Tigar; granting 57 Motion to Amend Answer. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/17/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

KELLEY RAJALA,

Case No. 15-cv-00442-JST

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
AMEND ANSWER

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

SONOMA COUNTY GO LOCAL
COOPERATIVE, INCORPORATED, et al.,

Re: ECF No. 57

Defendants.
Defendants-Counterclaimants Sonoma County Go Local Cooperative, Inc. and Sustaining

13

Technologies, LLC (“Defendants”) have filed an unopposed Motion to Amend Defendants’

14

Answer. ECF No. 57.

15

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) permits a party to amend a pleading once “as a

16

matter of course” within 21 days of serving it or within 21 days after a response to it has been

17

filed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Otherwise, “a party may amend its pleading only with the

18

opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). A district court

19

“should freely give leave” to amend a pleading “when justice so requires.” Id. “Four factors are

20

commonly used to determine the propriety of a motion for leave to amend. These are: bad faith,

21

undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of amendment.” DCD Programs, Ltd. v.

22

Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987) (citation omitted). “The party opposing amendment

23

bears the burden of showing prejudice.” Id. at 187.

24

The Court finds that Defendants’ Motion to Amend the Answer is proper given that there

25

is no evidence of bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to Plaintiff, or futility of amendment. Indeed,

26

Plaintiff does not oppose the proposed amendment. ECF No. 57 at 5. Accordingly, Defendants’

27

Motion to Amend the Answer in the form shown in Exhibit 1 to Defendants’ Memorandum of

28

1

Law in Support of the Motion to Amend is granted.1 Plaintiff shall have 20 days from the date of

2

service of such Amended Answer, Defenses, and Counterclaims to file a responsive pleading.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
4

Dated: December 17, 2015

5
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

6
7
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
1

28

The Amended Answer has already been filed on the docket as a separate document. See ECF
No. 58.
2