LHF Productions Inc v. Does 1-19

Filing 87

ORDER granting plaintiff's 86 Motion for leave to file second amended 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

v.

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

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 Name Defaulted Parties. Dkt. #86. LHF filed this matter in

18

July 2016; an Amended Complaint was filed in October 2016. See Dkts. #1 and #20. In April

19
20
21

2017, LHF filed a motion to amend its Amended Complaint, and on June 16, 2017, the Court
granted LHF’s motion. See Dkts. #79 and #81. On June 19, 2017, LHF filed its Second Amended

22

Complaint. Dkt. #82. However, the Second Amended Complaint only identified one defendant.

23

Id. at 1. Because LHF does not seek to dismiss six previously identified defendants from this

24
25
26
27

matter, it now asks the Court for leave to amend its Second Amended Complaint so it can name
the six defendants it failed to include in its Second Amended Complaint. Dkt. #86 at 1. For the
reasons discussed herein, the Court GRANTS LHF’s motion.

28

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

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.

8

178, 182 (1962). Here, LHF demonstrates the interests of justice warrant allowing it to amend

9

its Second Amended Complaint. Because LHF had previously named Richard Acosta, Nathaniel

10
11
12

Lewis, Shawn Gauci, Antoliy Orlovskiy, Zhana Prieb, and Denise Evans as defendants in this
matter, and because LHF indicates it inadvertently removed these defendants from its Second

13

Amended Complaint, the Court is satisfied that LHF demonstrates there is no evidence of bad

14

faith or undue delay on its part. Consequently, LHF’s motion to amend its Second Amended

15

Complaint (Dkt. #86) is GRANTED.

16

DATED this 19th day of July 2017.

17
18
19
20

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT - 2