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)

Download PDF
  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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?