Gonzalez v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. et al

Filing 42


Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?