Hardie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association et al

Filing 127

ORDER: (1) Granting 117 Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Amend Complaint; (2) Vacating Hearing Date set for 12/12/2014. Plaintiff is directed to file his First Amended Complaint currently proposed at ECF No. 117-3. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 12/4/2014. (srm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

DOMINIC HARDIE,

11

CASE NO. 3:13-cv-0346-GPC-DHB
Plaintiff,

12
13

(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
UNOPPOSED MOTION TO
AMEND COMPLAINT;

v.

14
15
16
17

ORDER:

(2) VACATING HEARING DATE
THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, a
nonprofit association, et al.,

[ECF No. 117]

Defendants.

18
19

Before the Court is Plaintiff Dominic Hardie’s (“Plaintiff”) Unopposed Motion

20 to Amend. (ECF No. 117.) Defendant National Collegiate Athletic Association (the
21 “NCAA”) filed a statement of nonopposition to Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 123.)
22 Plaintiff wishes to correct a single misrepresentation regarding his criminal conviction,
23 clarifying that he pled guilty only to “possession” and not “possession with intent to
24 distribute.” (ECF No. 117-1, at 1.) Plaintiff claims that he only recently became aware
25 of the misrepresentation. (Id. at 1–2.)
26

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), leave to amend a complaint after

27 a responsive pleading has been filed may be allowed by leave of the court and “shall
28 freely be given when justice so requires.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962);
-1-

3:13-cv-0346-GPC-DHB

1 FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a). Granting leave to amend rests in the sound discretion of the trial
2 court. Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Republic Airlines, 761 F.2d
3 1386, 1390 (9th Cir. 1985). This discretion must be guided by the strong federal policy
4 favoring the disposition of cases on the merits and permitting amendments with
5 “extreme liberality.” DCD Programs Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir.
6 1987). “This liberality in granting leave to amend is not dependent on whether the
7 amendment will add causes of action or parties.” Id.; contra Union Pac. R.R. Co. v.
8 Nev. Power Co., 950 F.2d 1429, 1432 (9th Cir. 1991).
9

Because Rule 15(a) favors a liberal policy, the nonmoving party bears the burden

10 of demonstrating why leave to amend should not be granted. Genentech, Inc. v. Abbott
11 Labs., 127 F.R.D. 529, 530–31 (N.D. Cal. 1989). In assessing the propriety of
12 amendment, courts consider several factors: (1) undue delay; (2) bad faith or dilatory
13 motive; (3) repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously permitted;
14 (4) prejudice to the opposing party; and (5) futility of amendment. Foman, 371 U.S. at
15 182; United States v. Corinthian Colls., 655 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir. 2011).
16

The Court finds that all of the Foman factors weigh in Plaintiff’s favor and thus

17 GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to amend. First, Plaintiff has not delayed, bringing this
18 motion soon after he became aware of the error. Second, Plaintiff is not acting in bad
19 faith and merely wishes to correct a misrepresentation. Third, Plaintiff has not
20 repeatedly failed to cure deficiencies as this is the first time he seeks to amend the
21 complaint. Fourth, the NCAA would suffer no prejudice as Plaintiff’s amendment only
22 changes one alleged fact. Fifth, Plaintiff’s amendment would not be futile as he is only
23 correcting a misrepresentation.
24

For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

25

1.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, (ECF No. 117), is GRANTED;

26

2.

Plaintiff is directed to file his First Amended Complaint currently

27

proposed at ECF No. 117-3; and

28 / /
-2-

3:13-cv-0346-GPC-DHB

1

3.

The hearing set for December 12, 2014, is VACATED.

2 DATED: December 4, 2014
3
4
5

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

3:13-cv-0346-GPC-DHB