Steckbeck et al v. Cullinary Worker's Union Local 226 et al

Filing 18

ORDER denying as moot, without prejudice 9 Motion to Dismiss. Granting 13 Motion file second amended complaint. Plaintiff shall have until March 12, 2015 t file its Second Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 3/5/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DKJ)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

DAVID STECKBECK, et al.,

8

Plaintiffs,

9
10
11
12

Case No. 2:14-cv-00323-RFB-CWH
ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND

v.
CULINARY WORKER'S UNION LOCAL 226,
et al.,
Defendants.

13

On May 12, 2014, David Steckbeck and Steven Alba (“Plaintiffs”) moved for leave to

14

file a second amended complaint. ECF No. 13. On May 28, 2014, Bartender's Local Union 165

15

(“Defendant”) opposed Plaintiffs’ motion. ECF No. 16.

16

“A district court shall grant leave to amend freely ‘when justice so requires.’ . . . this

17

policy is to be applied with extreme liberality.” Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244

18

F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted);

19

accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). A district court may consider “undue delay, bad faith, futility of

20

amendment, and prejudice to the opposing party.” Howey v. United States, 481 F.2d 1187, 1190

21

(9th Cir. 1973); accord Chudacoff v. Univ. Med. Ctr. of S. Nevada, 649 F.3d 1143, 1152 (9th

22

Cir. 2011). “While all these factors are relevant, the crucial factor is the resulting prejudice to

23

the opposing party.” Howey, 481 F.2d at 1190; accord Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc.,

24

316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Prejudice is the ‘touchstone of the inquiry under rule

25

15(a).’” (citations omitted)).

26

Here, Plaintiffs request leave to amend to accomplish three purposes: to more explicitly

27

state the basis for federal jurisdiction, to make their claim for breach of collective bargaining

28

agreement comply with relevant case law, and to “remove their second cause of action for breach

1

of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and any reference to state law violations.”

2

Response 6–7, ECF No. 11; see Mot. to File Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 13.

3

In opposition, Defendant specifically name none of the factors this Court may consider in

4

evaluating a Rule 15(a) motion to amend but does appear to allege futility of amendment. Opp’n

5

to Mot. to File Second Am. Compl. 1:22–24 (“Defendant Bartenders Union Local 165 opposes

6

Plaintiffs' motion to file a second amended complaint for the reasons set out in Local 165's reply

7

in support of the motion to dismiss. Specifically, a complaint must allege enough facts to state a

8

claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The Court

9

cannot definitively determine based upon the proposed Second Amended Complaint, that

10

amendment would be futile. As the Defendant does not allege any bad faith or claim any

11

prejudice or other harm will be caused by the filing of the second amended complaint, the Court

12

will consider challenges to the merits of the proposed amended pleading after the second

13

amended pleading is filed. For these reasons, the Court finds that the interest of justice is best

14

served by permitting amendment of the complaint. Accordingly,

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

IT IS ORDERED that Motion to File Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 13, is
GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 9, is DENIED as moot,
without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff shall have until March 12, 2015 to file
its Second Amended Complaint.
DATED this 5th day of March, 2015.

22
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-