Moss v. Infinity Insurance Company, et al

Filing 67

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting 62 Motion for Leave to File. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/5/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ARRYANNE MOSS,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 15-cv-03456-JSC

v.
INFINITY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
COMPLAINT TO ADD DEFENDANTS
Re: Dkt. No. 62

12
13

This matter involves insurance claims arising from an automobile collision. Plaintiff

14

Arryanne Moss (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against Defendants Infinity Insurance Company,

15

Automobile Warranty Services Insurance Company, Lithia Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge of Santa Rosa,

16

and Charlotte Toth (collectively, “Defendants”). Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s

17

motion for leave to amend the complaint to add an additional defendant, Insurance Answer Center,

18

Inc. (“IAC”). (Dkt. No. 62.) Defendants have not opposed Plaintiff’s motion. After carefully

19

considering the arguments and briefing submitted, the Court concludes that oral argument is

20

unnecessary, see Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend.

21

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 provides that leave to amend the pleadings before trial

22

should be given freely “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Leave to amend is to

23

be granted with “extreme liberality.” Sonoma Cty. Ass’n of Retired Employees v. Sonoma Cty.,

24

708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013). In determining whether justice requires leave to amend,

25

courts consider the five factors initially identified in Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962):

26

“bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, and whether the

27

plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.” Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th

28

Cir. 2004). “[I]t is the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest

1

weight.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation

2

omitted). The decision to grant or deny a request for leave to amend rests in the discretion of the

3

trial court. See California ex rel. California Dep’t of Toxic Substances Control v. Neville Chem.

4

Co., 358 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir. 2004).

5

None of the five Foman factors weighs against granting Plaintiff leave to amend her
complaint as requested. The case is in its very early stages—no parties have answered yet, with

7

the Court having recently dismissed Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) with leave to

8

amend (see Dkt. No. 65), and no pretrial or trial schedule has been set. Further, given the early

9

stages of the case, there will be no prejudice to any parties if Plaintiff is granted leave to amend to

10

add an additional defendant. Accordingly, for good cause shown, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

motion for leave to amend the complaint to identify IAC as an additional party. Plaintiff shall

12

include any allegations relating to IAC in her new amended complaint to be submitted in response

13

to the Court’s prior order dismissing the TAC.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 5, 2016

16
17
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

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