New England Life Insurance Company v. Lee et al

Filing 91

ORDER granting 77 motion for leave to amend. Proposed counterclaims shall be filed within seven days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 4/22/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

NEW ENGLAND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,)
)
Plaintiff(s),
)
)
vs.
)
)
JIMMY LEE, et al.,
)
)
Defendant(s).
)
)

Case No. 2:14-cv-01797-JCM-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 77)

16

Pending before the Court is a joint motion for leave to file counterclaims, filed by Defendants

17

John Ewing and Karin Metcalf. Docket No. 77. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition. Docket No.

18

79. No reply has been filed. The Court finds this matter properly resolved without a hearing. Local

19

Rule 78-2. For the reasons stated below, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion.

20

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires,” and

21

there is a strong public policy in favor of permitting amendment. Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757

22

(9th Cir. 1999). As such, the Ninth Circuit has made clear that Rule 15(a) is to be applied with “extreme

23

liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003). In deciding

24

a motion for leave to amend, the court considers five factors: (1) bad faith; (2) undue delay; (3) prejudice

25

to the opposing party; (4) futility of amendment; and (5) whether the party has previously amended the

26

complaint. United States v. Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir. 2011). “Absent prejudice,

27

or a strong showing of any of the remaining . . . factors, there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in

28

favor of granting leave to amend.” Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052 (emphasis in original).

1

Plaintiff opposes the motion exclusively on the argument that allowing amendment would be

2

futile because the proposed counterclaims would not survive a motion to dismiss. See Docket No. 79

3

at 7-10. “Denial of leave to amend on this ground is rare. Ordinarily, courts will defer consideration

4

of challenges to the merits of a proposed amendment until after leave to amend is granted and the

5

amended pleading is filed.” Netbula, LLC v. Distinct Corp., 212 F.R.D. 534, 539 (N.D. Cal. 2003); see

6

also Steward v. CMRE Fin’l Servs., Inc., 2015 WL 6123202, *2 (D. Nev. Oct. 16, 2015). Deferring

7

ruling on the sufficiency of the allegations is preferred in light of the more liberal standards applicable

8

to motions to amend and the fact that the parties’ arguments are better developed through a motion to

9

dismiss. See, e.g., In re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litig., 536 F. Supp. 2d

10
11
12

1129, 1135-36 (N.D. Cal. 2008).
Accordingly, the motion for leave to amend is GRANTED. The proposed counterclaims shall
be filed on the docket within seven days of the issuance of this order.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

DATED: April 22, 2016

15
16

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2