LHF Productions Inc v. Does 1-19

Filing 81

ORDER granting plaintiff's 79 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10

LHF PRODUCTIONS, INC,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13

Case No. C16-1175 RSM
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

v.
DOES 1-19,

14
15

Defendants.

16

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff LHF Productions, Inc.’s (“LHF”) Motion

17

for Leave to Amend Complaint to Substitute Party. Dkt. #79. LHF filed this matter in July 2016

18

and later amended its Complaint in October 2016. See Dkts. #1 and #20. LHF’s Amended

19
20
21

Complaint names Tracy Silvan as a defendant. See Dkt. #20 ¶ 21. Despite naming Ms. Silvan
as a defendant, LHF now asks the Court to allow it to amend its Amended Complaint so it can

22

remove Ms. Silvan as a defendant, and name Simon Montgomery as a defendant instead. Dkt.

23

#79 at 1-2. To support its motion, LHF submits a declaration by its counsel. See Dkt. #80. In

24
25
26

that declaration, LHF’s counsel explains that during its Rule 26(f) conference with Ms. Silvan,
Ms. Silvan identified Mr. Montgomery as the party responsible for the alleged copyright

27

infringement associated with Ms. Silvan’s internet protocol address. Id. ¶2. For the reasons

28

discussed herein, the Court GRANTS LHF’s motion.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT - 1

1

Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure calls for the liberal amendment of

2

pleadings, “when justice so requires.” FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2). Thus, “[i]n the absence of any

3

apparent or declared reason—such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the

4

[plaintiff], repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of the
amendment, etc.,” parties should be allowed to amend a complaint. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S.
178, 182 (1962).
LHF demonstrates the interests of justice warrant allowing it to amend its Amended
Complaint. LHF demonstrates there is no evidence of bad faith or undue delay on its part. LHF
first learned of Mr. Montgomery’s alleged infringement on April 17, 2017, and four days later

13

filed its motion to amend. See Dkts. #79 at 1-3 and #80 ¶ 2. Given LHF’s recent discovery of

14

Mr. Montgomery’s identity, it cannot be said LHF repeatedly failed to add Mr. Montgomery as

15

a defendant. It does not appear that LHF’s addition of Mr. Montgomery as a defendant is a futile

16

amendment, as LHF has represented that it has “obtained credible evidence” indicating that

17
18

Mr. Montgomery is the responsible party for the alleged infringement. Dkt. #79 at 3. The Court

19

agrees that Ms. Silvan will not be prejudiced by LHF’s proposed amendment, as she will be

20

dismissed from this matter. See id. LHF’s motion to amend its Amended Complaint to dismiss

21

Ms. Silvan and add Mr. Montgomery as a defendant is accordingly GRANTED.

22
23
24
25
26

DATED this 16th day of June 2017.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT - 2