Abraham Ghorbanian v. Guardian Life Insurance Company of America et al

Filing 95

ORDER granting Plaintiff's 77 Motion to Amend Complaint and File a Second Amended Complaint; Plaintiff shall file with the Court his Second Amended Complaint, as proposed at Dkt. # 77 -1, Ex. C, no later than three (3) business days from the date of this Order. Counsel is directed to e-file their Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (SWT)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

ABRAHAM GHORBANIAN, D.D.S.,
Plaintiff,

9
10
11
12

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

v.
GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY OF AMERICA, et al.,

13
14

Case No. C14-1396 RSM

Defendants.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend his Complaint

15

to add a claim against Defendants pursuant to the Insurance Fair Conduct Act (“IFCA”) based
16
17

on a February 27, 2015, denial of disability benefits. Dkt. #77. Defendants oppose the motion,

18

arguing that Plaintiff has unduly delayed amending his Complaint and has proposed an

19

amendment that is futile. Dkt. #88.

20

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) governs the amendment of pleadings. Under
21
22

Rule 15(a)(2), leave to amend should be freely given “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ.

23

P. 15(a)(2). The Ninth Circuit has held that leave to amend should be granted with “extreme

24

liberality.” DCD Programs, LTD. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987). The Court

25

must consider whether the proposed amendment (1) would be futile, (2) is the product of undue

26

delay, (3) would prejudice the non-moving party, and (4) was brought in bad faith. Id. (stating
27
28

all four factors). The opposing party bears the burden of showing prejudice, id. at 187, which
ORDER
PAGE - 1

1

is the most important factor in whether to grant a motion for leave to amend. Eminence

2

Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (presumption in favor of

3

granting leave exists absent prejudice or a strong showing of any of the remaining factors).

4

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s motion and reply in support thereof, and the opposition

5

thereto, the Court will allow Plaintiff’s filing of a Second Amended Complaint. For the
6
7

reasons set forth by Plaintiff, the Court agrees that Plaintiff has not unduly delayed in the filing

8

of his proposed IFCA claim, which is based on a separate denial of benefits than previously

9

examined by the Court. Further, the Court finds that Defendants have failed to demonstrate

10

prejudice in allowing this amendment. Finally, the Court cannot conclude at this stage of the

11

litigation that the proposed amendments would be futile. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to
12
13
14
15

Amend (Dkt. #77) is GRANTED.
Plaintiff shall file with the Court his Second Amended Complaint, as proposed at Dkt.
#77-1, Ex. C, no later than three (3) business days from the date of this Order.

16

DATED this 13th day of April 2017.
17
18

A

19
20

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER
PAGE - 2