WAMC Company, Inc. v. Midwest Insurance Company et al

Filing 22

ORDER granting 17 Motion to Amend/Correct the complaint.. Signed by Judge Jeffrey T. Miller on 7/1/14. Plaintiffs may file the second amendedcomplaint within twenty days of the filing of this order. The second amendedcomplaint may not add new parties or assert new claims and should be consistent withthe proposed second amended complaint attached to Plaintiffs motion (av1)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 WAMC COMPANY, INC. doing business as Cal West Enterprises, vs. Plaintiff, 15 ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT MIDWEST INSURANCE COMPANY; ILLINOIS MIDWEST INSURANCE AGENCY, INC.; STAR INSURANCE COMPANY; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, 16 CASE NO. 13-cv-2649 JM (JLB) Defendant. 14 17 18 On April 1, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second amended 19 complaint. (Dkt. No. 17). Plaintiff attached the proposed second amended complaint 20 as an exhibit to the motion. (Dkt. No. 17-4). Defendants have not filed an opposition 21 to Plaintiff’s motion. Having reviewed Plaintiff’s request, the court finds this matter 22 suitable for resolution on the papers without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local 23 Rule 7.1.d.1. Based on the following, Plaintiff’s motion is hereby GRANTED. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), parties may amend their 24 25 pleadings with either the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. Rule 26 15(a)(2) further states “the court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” 27 Generally, leave to amend should be granted “absent bad faith, futility, undue prejudice 28 or excessive delay.” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, -1- 13-cv-2649 JM (JLB) 1 951 (9th Cir. 2006)(citations omitted). 2 In the proposed second amended complaint, Plaintiff seeks to add a request for 3 punitive damages and attorney’s fees in the fourth cause of action and a request for 4 punitive damages in the sixth cause of action. Plaintiff asserts these “remedies were 5 not included in the original complaint in an effort to conservatively plead the case until 6 more facts were known.” (Pl. Mot. at 1, 7). Plaintiff also seeks to replace paragraphs 7 36-71 of the first amended complaint with paragraphs 36-74, as proposed in the second 8 amended complaint. (Id. at 7). Plaintiff indicates these paragraphs are designed to 9 better describe the facts supporting its request for punitive damages and also provide 10 a more detailed pleading for the benefit of Defendants and the court. (Id.) Lastly, 11 Plaintiff wishes to add a reference to Exhibit 1 at the end of paragraph 35. Exhibit 1 12 was also attached to the first amended complaint. Having reviewed the first amended 13 complaint and the proposed second amended complaint, these requests do not implicate 14 any of the factors that may weigh against granting leave to amend. (Id.) 15 Moreover, Defendants have not offered any argument to support denying 16 Plaintiff’s request. Local Rule 7.1.e.2. requires a party opposing a motion to file an 17 opposition or statement of nonopposition within fourteen calendar days of the noticed 18 hearing. Failure to file an opposition in compliance with these rules “may constitute 19 a consent to the granting of a motion” under Local Rule 7.1.f.3.c. 20 In light of these considerations, the court grants Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for 21 leave to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiffs may file the second amended 22 complaint within twenty days of the filing of this order. The second amended 23 complaint may not add new parties or assert new claims and should be consistent with 24 the proposed second amended complaint attached to Plaintiff’s motion. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 DATED: July 1, 2014 27 28 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller United States District Judge -2- 13-cv-2649 JM (JLB)

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?