Ruiz v. Plusfour, Inc. et al

Filing 30

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that 20 IDS's motion to dismiss be, and the same hereby is, DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 24 plaintiff's motion for leave to amend be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall file an amended complaint identical to that attached to 24 -1 his motion to amend within seven (7) days from the date of this order. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 6/21/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

JIMMY T. RUIZ,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 2:17-CV-420 JCM (GWF)
Plaintiff(s),

ORDER

v.
EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC,
et al.,
Defendant(s).

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

Presently before the court is defendant Innovis Data Solutions, Inc.’s (“IDS”) motion to
dismiss. (ECF No. 20). Plaintiff Jimmy T. Ruiz filed a response (ECF No. 23), to which IDS
replied (ECF No. 27).
Also before the court is plaintiff’s motion to amend. (ECF No. 24). IDS has not filed a
response, and the period to do so has since passed.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that “[t]he court should freely give leave
[to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The United States Supreme Court
has interpreted Rule 15(a) and confirmed the liberal standard district courts must apply when
granting such leave. In Foman v. Davis, the Supreme Court explained:
In the absence of any apparent or declared reason—such as undue delay, bad faith
or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies
by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue
of allowance of the amendment, futility of the amendment, etc.—the leave sought
should, as the rules require, be “freely given.”
371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
Pursuant to Local Rule 7-2(d), “the failure of an opposing party to file points and authorities
in response to any motion . . . constitutes a consent to the granting of the motion.” LR 7-2(d).

1

Thus, by failing to file a timely response, IDS has consented to the granting of plaintiff’s motion

2

to amend. See United States v. Hvass, 355 U.S. 570, 574–75 (1958) (holding that local rules have

3

the force of law).

4

Local Rule 15-1(a) states that “the moving party shall attach the proposed amended

5

pleading to any motion to amend . . . .” LR 15-1(a). Plaintiff has attached a proposed amended

6

complaint to his motion. (ECF Nos. 24, 24-1).

7

Accordingly,

8

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that IDS’s motion to dismiss

9
10
11

(ECF No. 20) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend (ECF No. 24) be,
and the same hereby is, GRANTED.

12

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall file an amended complaint identical to that

13

attached to his motion to amend (ECF No. 24-1) within seven (7) days from the date of this order.

14
15
16

DATED June 21, 2017.
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-