Gonzalez v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. et al

Filing 42

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT DITECH FINANCIAL, LLCS 29 MOTION TO DISMISS AND GRANTING LEAVE FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/25/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

LOUIE GONZALEZ,

Case No. 16-cv-05678-HSG

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS,
INC., et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT
DEFENDANT DITECH FINANCIAL,
LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND
GRANTING LEAVE FOR PLAINTIFF
TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
Re: Dkt. No. 29

12

Pending before the Court are the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Ditech Financial,

13

LLC (“Ditech”), Dkt. No. 29, and the request for leave to amend the complaint filed by Plaintiff

14

Louie Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”), Dkt. No. 39. The Court finds that this matter is appropriate for

15

disposition without oral argument and the matter is deemed submitted. See N.D. Civ. L.R. 7–1(b).

16

The Court hereby DENIES AS MOOT Ditech’s motion to dismiss and GRANTS Plaintiff’s

17

request for leave to amend.

18

I.

BACKGROUND

19

On October 5, 2016, Plaintiff filed his complaint, alleging claims under California and

20

federal credit reporting statutes. Dkt. No. 1. On December 30, 2016, Ditech filed its pending

21

motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 29. On January 13, 2017, Plaintiff filed a limited opposition to

22

Ditech’s motion. Dkt. No. 39. Plaintiff declared that “several key allegations” were missing from

23

his complaint, and that these missing allegations “entirely shift the focus of the legal arguments

24

made” such that much of the case law presented in the motion was inapposite. Id. Therefore,

25

Plaintiff’s opposition was limited to a request to file an amended complaint alleging these missing

26

allegations. On January 20, 2017, Ditech filed a notice of non-opposition to Plaintiff’s request for

27

leave to amend the complaint. Dkt. No. 39. In its notice, Ditech stated in part, “Ditech does not

28

concede the validity of the allegations made in the Complaint, and expressly reserves any and all

1
2

defenses Ditech may have with respect to the claims raised in the Complaint.” Id. at 1.
II.

DISCUSSION
“[A] party may amend its pleading . . . with . . . the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

4

15(a)(2). “The court should freely give leave to amend when justice so requires.” Id.; M/V Am.

5

Queen v. San Diego Marine Const. Corp., 708 F.2d 1483, 1492 (9th Cir. 1983). The five factors

6

relevant to determining proper amendment are: (1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the

7

opposing party, (4) futility of amendment, and (5) previous amendments. See Foman v. Davis,

8

371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Sharkey v. O’Neal, 778 F.3d 767, 774 (9th Cir. 2015). The Court

9

weighs prejudice to the opposing party most heavily. Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316

10

F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). “Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

3

Foman factors, there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.”

12

Id. (emphasis in original).
Here, the most important factor weighs in favor of granting leave to amend: there is no

13
14

evidence that Ditech would be prejudiced. Moreover, there have been no prior amendments, and

15

there is no reason to believe that amendment would be futile. Lastly, there is no evidence that

16

Plaintiff has sought leave to amend out of bad faith or simply to delay litigation. Accordingly, the

17

presumption in favor of granting leave to amend applies. See Eminence Capital, 316 F. 3d at

18

1052. Since granting leave to amend is appropriate, Ditech’s motion to dismiss is now moot.

19

III.

CONCLUSION

20

For the foregoing reasons, Ditech’s motion to dismiss is DENIED AS MOOT and

21

Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file his amended complaint no

22

later than ten days from the date of this order. If Ditech files a motion to dismiss the amended

23

complaint, it should notice the hearing date as April 20, 2017.

24
25
26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 1/25/2017
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

28
2