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)

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 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

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?