Hardman v. Government of Guam (Guam Police Department) et al

Filing 15

Order granting 10 Motion to Dismiss; granting 11 First Motion to Dismiss; granting 12 First Motion to Dismiss; granting 14 Motion for Leave to Amend. Plaintiff shall file her First Amended Complaint by 3:00 p.m. on 08/19/2010. Signed by Chief Judge Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood on 8/5/2010. (fad, )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1 The court notes that Plaintiff "asks the court to defer deciding the instant motions to dismiss and to allow P la in tiff to amend the Complaint." Docket No. 14 at 4:13-14. However, Plaintiff offers no reason to "defer deciding th e instant motions," so the court will not do so.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF GUAM

GILLIAN MARY HARDMAN, Plaintiff, vs. GOVERNMENT OF GUAM (GUAM POLICE DEPARTMENT), BENNY T. BABAUTA, CARLO E. REYES, KENNETH J.C. BALAJADIA, JOSEPH B. TENORIO, AND OTHER COCONSPIRATOR DOES 1 THROUGH 9, Defendants.

Civil Case No. 10-00010

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO DISMISS

Before the court are three motions to dismiss: (1) one by Defendant CARLO E. REYES (see Docket No. 10); (2) one by Defendant GOVERNMENT OF GUAM (GUAM POLICE DEPARTMENT) (see Docket No. 11); and (3) one by Defendants BENNY T. BABAUTA and KENNETH J.C. BALAJADIA (see Docket No. 12) (collectively, "the Motions"). The Motions are effectively unopposed. See generally Docket No. 14. Therefore, the Motions are GRANTED.1 Plaintiff seeks leave to amend her complaint. See Docket No. 14 at 3:17-5:4. Courts are free to grant a party leave to amend whenever "justice so requires." FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2). In deciding whether justice requires granting leave to amend, factors to be considered include "the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

presence or absence of undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendments, undue prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of the proposed amendment." Moore v. Kayport Package Express, Inc., 885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)) ("the Foman factors"). Requests for leave should be granted with "extreme liberality." Moss v. United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 972 (9th Cir. 2009). "Dismissal without leave to amend is improper unless it is clear, upon de novo review, that the complaint could not be saved by any amendment." Id. Defendants have not elected to file replies in support of their Motions, and so have not offered any argument that any of the Foman factors have been established. Moreover, the court sees no evidence of such. Therefore, leave to amend is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file her First Amended Complaint by 3 p.m. on August 19, 2010. SO ORDERED.

/s/ Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood Chief Judge Dated: Aug 05, 2010

-2-