Ninteman v. The Dutra Group

Filing 18

ORDER Granting 17 Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. The Court grants Plaintiff's unopposed motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. The Clerk of Court is instructed to file Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 17-1) as a separate docket entry. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 1/23/2019. (rmc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT NINTEMAN,

Case No.: 18cv1222-MMA (AGS)
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT
[Doc. No. 17]

THE DUTRA GROUP,
Defendant.

15
16
17

On June 11, 2018, Plaintiff Robert Ninteman (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action

18

against Defendant The Dutra Group (“Defendant”) alleging claims for negligence under

19

the Jones Act, and maintenance, cure and unearned wages under general maritime law.

20

Doc. No. 1. On October 16, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a First

21

Amended Complaint (“FAC”), which added a cause of action for unseaworthiness due to

22

the lack of fall protection on the vessels to which Plaintiff was assigned. Doc. No. 15

23

(“FAC”). On December 4, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting leave to file a Second

24

Amended Complaint (“SAC”). Doc. No. 17-2 (“Mtn.”). To date, Defendant has not filed

25

an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. See Docket. The Court, in its discretion, decides the

26

matter on the papers submitted and without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule

27

7.1.d.1. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s unopposed

28

motion for leave to file an SAC.
1
18cv1222-MMA (AGS)

1
2

LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 governs amendment of pleadings. It states that

3

if a responsive pleading has already been filed, the party seeking amendment “may

4

amend the party’s pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse

5

party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).

6

This rule reflects an underlying policy that disputes should be determined on their merits,

7

and not on the technicalities of pleading rules. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 181-

8

82 (1962). Accordingly, the Court must be generous in granting leave to amend. See

9

Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990) (noting

10

leave to amend should be granted with “extreme liberality”); Ascon Props., Inc. v. Mobil

11

Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989).

12

However, courts may deny leave to amend for several reasons, including the

13

presence of bad faith on the part of the plaintiff, undue delay, prejudice to the defendant,

14

futility of amendment, and whether the plaintiff has previously filed an amended

15

complaint. See Ascon Props., 866 F.2d at 1160; McGlinchy v. Shell Chem. Co., 845 F.2d

16

802, 809 (9th Cir. 1988). The test of futility “is identical to the one used when

17

considering the sufficiency of a pleading challenged under Rule 12(b)(6).” Miller v.

18

Rykoff-Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 1988).

19
20

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff seeks to amend his FAC to add a general maritime law negligence cause

21

of action against a new defendant, R.E. Staite Engineering, Inc. (“R.E. Staite”), and to

22

add R.E. Staite as a defendant to the unseaworthiness cause of action. Mtn. at 2. Plaintiff

23

requests the Court grant him leave to amend because there is no undue delay or prejudice

24

to Defendant or R.E. Staite, and leave to amend would not be futile. See generally, Mtn.

25

Here, while Plaintiff has previously amended his complaint, the Court does not find

26

evidence of bad faith, prejudice to Defendant or R.E. Staite, or futility with respect to

27

Plaintiff’s proposed amendment. Additionally, Plaintiff filed his motion by the deadline

28

set forth in the Court’s scheduling order (see Doc. No. 12), and, given that information
2
18cv1222-MMA (AGS)

1

regarding R.E. Staite is newly-discovered (see Mtn. at 2), it does not appear that Plaintiff

2

delayed in filing the instant motion.
CONCLUSION

3
4

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for leave to file a

5

Second Amended Complaint. The Clerk of Court is instructed to file Plaintiff’s Second

6

Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 17-1) as a separate docket entry.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 23, 2019

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
18cv1222-MMA (AGS)