Knowles v. eBay, Inc et al

Filing 72

ORDER by Judge Hamilton granting 63 Motion for Joinder (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/1/2013)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

LUKE KNOWLES,
Plaintiff,

8
9

v.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO ADD DEFENDANT

EBAY INC., et al.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 12-5211 PJH

Defendants.
_______________________________/

12
13

Before the court is the motion of plaintiff Luke Knowles for leave to amend the

14

complaint to add The American Insurance Company (“TAIC”) as a defendant. Having read

15

the parties’ papers and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal

16

authority, the court hereby GRANTS the motion.

17

The addition of new parties is governed by Rule 21, which states, in pertinent part,

18

that “[o]n motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a

19

party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. Motions to amend the complaint to add parties are governed by

20

the standards applicable to motions for leave to amend under Federal Rule of Civil

21

Procedure 15, which provides that “leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.”

22

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a); see also, e.g., Chodos v. West Pub. Co., 292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th

23

Cir. 2002) (leave to amend granted with “extreme liberality”).

24

Leave to amend is thus ordinarily granted under Rule 15 unless the amendment is

25

futile, would cause undue prejudice to the defendants, or is sought by plaintiffs in bad faith

26

or with a dilatory motive. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Smith v. Pacific

27

Properties and Dev. Corp., 358 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th Cir. 2004). In addition, amendments

28

seeking to add claims are to be granted more freely than amendments adding parties.

1
2

Union Pacific R. Co. v. Nevada Power Co., 950 F.2d 1429, 1432 (9th Cir. 1991).
At this stage of the litigation, where the only actions taken have been the filing of the

with leave to amend, and the filing of an amended complaint, the court finds no reason to

5

preclude plaintiff from further amending the complaint to add TAIC as a defendant.

6

Certainly the reasons advanced by defendant Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company are not

7

sufficient to outweigh the policy of granting leave to amend with liberality, even under Rule

8

21. See DeMalherbe v. Int’l Union of Elevator Constructors, 438 F.Supp. 1121, 1128 (N.D.

9

Cal. 1977); 6 Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure Civ. § 1479 & n.10 (3d

10

ed. 2012). The addition of TAIC would not clearly be futile, would not prejudice the existing

11
For the Northern District of California

complaint, the filing of motions to dismiss, the issuance of an order granting the motions

4

United States District Court

3

defendants, and does not appear to have been sought by plaintiff in bad faith or with a

12

dilatory motive.

13

No later than May 8, 2013, plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint which lists

14

TAIC in the caption, and includes the same allegations as the April 3, 2013 amended

15

complaint. Plaintiff must also have a summons issued for TAIC, and must effectuate

16

service within two weeks thereafter and promptly file a proof of service. The defendants

17

(including TAIC) will have 21 days from the date TAIC is served to file answers or motions

18

to dismiss.

19

VACATED.

The date for the hearing on this motion, previously set for May 8, 2013, is

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

Dated: May 1, 2013
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
2