LHF Productions Inc v. Does 1-19
ORDER granting plaintiff's 86 Motion for leave to file second amended complaint signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
LHF PRODUCTIONS, INC,
Case No. C16-1175 RSM
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO AMEND SECOND
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff LHF Productions, Inc.’s (“LHF”) Motion
for Leave to Amend Complaint to Name Defaulted Parties. Dkt. #86. LHF filed this matter in
July 2016; an Amended Complaint was filed in October 2016. See Dkts. #1 and #20. In April
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
Complaint. Dkt. #82. However, the Second Amended Complaint only identified one defendant.
Id. at 1. Because LHF does not seek to dismiss six previously identified defendants from this
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.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT - 1
Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure calls for the liberal amendment of
pleadings, “when justice so requires.” FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2). Thus, “[i]n the absence of any
apparent or declared reason—such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the
[plaintiff], repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue
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). Here, LHF demonstrates the interests of justice warrant allowing it to amend
its Second Amended Complaint. Because LHF had previously named Richard Acosta, Nathaniel
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
Amended Complaint, the Court is satisfied that LHF demonstrates there is no evidence of bad
faith or undue delay on its part. Consequently, LHF’s motion to amend its Second Amended
Complaint (Dkt. #86) is GRANTED.
DATED this 19th day of July 2017.
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?