Roybal v. Toppenish School District et al

Filing 28

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED ANSWER AND STRIKING SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION - striking 5 Motion for Summary Judgment; and granting 27 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr. (CC, Case Administrator)

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

4
5

ROBERT ROYBAL,
Plaintiff,

6
v.

7
8

No. 1:CV-14-3092-SMJ

TOPPENISH SCHOOL DISTRICT and
JOHN CERNA,

ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED
ANSWER AND STRIKING
SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION

9
Defendants.
10
11

Before the Court, without oral argument, are Defendants' Motion for Leave

12

to File Amended Answer, ECF No. 27, and Notice Striking Defendants’ Motion

13

for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 26. Defendants seek to file an amended answer

14

and strike their previously-filed summary judgment motion, ECF No. 5. Having

15

reviewed the pleadings and the file in this matter, the Court is fully informed and

16

grants leave to file an amended answer and strikes the summary judgment motion.

17

Generally, Rule 15 advises the Court that “leave shall be freely given when

18

justice so requires.” This policy is “to be applied with extreme liberality.” Owens

19

v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting

20

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

ORDER - 1

1

In Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962), the Supreme Court offered the following

2

factors a district court should consider in deciding whether to grant leave to

3

amend:

4
5
6

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 amendment, etc.—the leave sought should, as
the rules require, be “freely given.”

7
Id. at 182. See also Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 373 (9th Cir.
8
1990); Hurn v. Ret. Fund Trust of the Plumbing, Heating & Piping Indus. of S.
9
Cal., 648 F.2d 1252, 1254 (9th Cir. 1981).
10
Here, Defendants sought leave to file an amended answer on October 31,
11
2014, before the Court’s November 1, 2014 deadline to amend pleadings. This is
12
Defendants first request to amend their answer, and the Court finds no reason to
13
suspect undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive. Accordingly, the motion is
14
granted.
15
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
16
1.

Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer, ECF No.

17
27, is GRANTED. Defendants shall promptly file their Amended
18
Answer.
19
2.

The Court STRIKES the December 3, 2014 Motion Hearing, and all

20
related deadlines, on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment,

ORDER - 2

1

ECF No. 5. The Clerks’ Office is directed to TERMINATE the

2

motion flag on ECF No. 5.

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order
and provide copies to all counsel.
DATED this 5th day of November 2014.

6
__________________________
SALVADOR MENDOZA, JR.
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Q:\SMJ\Civil\2014\Roybal v. Toppenish-3092\leave.grant.strike.msj.lc1.docx

ORDER - 3