Cline et al v. Reetz-Laiolo

Filing 67

ORDER GRANTING PARTIES LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINTS by Judge William H. Orrick granting (66) Motion for Leave to File in case 3:17-cv-06866-WHO and (78) Motion for Leave to File in case 3:17-cv-06867-WHO. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/6/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

EMMA CLINE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

v.
CHAZ REETZ-LAIOLO,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER GRANTING PARTIES LEAVE
TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINTS
Re: Dkt. No. 66 (Case No. 16-cv-6866);
Dkt. No. 78 (Case No. 16-cv-6867)

CHAZ REETZ-LAIOLO, et al.,

13
14

Related Case Nos. 3:17-cv-06866-WHO and
3:17-cv-06867-WHO

Plaintiffs,
v.
EMMA CLINE, et al.,
Defendants.
On June 28, 2018, I issued an order addressing the parties’ motions to dismiss, and granted
them 30 days to file amended complaints. Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motions to
Dismiss (“the Order”)(16-cv-6866, Dkt. No. 63; 16-cv-6867, Dkt. No. 74). Each side filed
motions for leave to file amended complaints in accordance with the Order and within the
designated time. Mot. for Leave to File First Am. Complaint (16-cv-6866, Dkt. No. 66); Mot. for
Leave to File Third Am. Complaint (16-cv-6867, Dkt. No. 78). Neither side has timely objected
to the other’s motion.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 dictates that “[t]he court should freely give leave when
justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “Courts consider five factors when deciding
whether to grant a motion for leave to amend pursuant to Rule 15: (i) bad faith on the part of the
movant; (ii) undue delay in filing the motion; (iii) prejudice to the opposing party; (iv) futility of

1

amendment; and (v) whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.” Victor v. R.C.

2

Bigelow, Inc., No. 13-cv-02976-WHO, 2015 WL 4104609, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 7, 2015).

3

“Above all, in exercising its discretion, the court ‘must be guided by the underlying purpose of

4

Rule 15—to facilitate decision on the merits, rather than on the pleadings or technicalities.’”

5

Castillo-Antonio v. Mejia, No. 14-cv-03637-JSC, 2014 WL 6735523, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26,

6

2014).

7

The parties have pursued their amendments in good faith and have not unduly delayed.
Further, the proposed amendments do not appear to be futile. See Barahona v. Union Pac. R.R.

9

Co., 881 F.3d 1122, 1134 (9th Cir. 2018)(“[L]eave to amend should be denied as futile ‘only if no

10

set of facts can be proved under the amendment to the pleadings that would constitute a valid and

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

sufficient claim or defense[.]’”). And there is little to no prejudice since this case is still in the

12

earliest stages of discovery. See Castillo-Antonio v. Mejia, No. 14-CV-03637-JSC, 2014 WL

13

6735523, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2014)(“Other courts have found prejudice when the

14

amendment comes on the eve or close of discovery… .”). To the extent that the amendments

15

cause any delay, it will likely impact both sides since both sets of plaintiffs seek leave to amend.

16

Since the factors support granting leave to amend, both plaintiffs’ motions are GRANTED.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Dated: August 6, 2018

19
20
William H. Orrick
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2