Smith v. Dougherty et al

Filing 33

ORDER denying plaintiff's 27 Motion to Amend signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS) cc Lisa Smith

Download PDF
        1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6 7 8 LISA SMITH, Plaintiff, 9 10 11 12 Case No. C16-1818RSM v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO AMEND MEGAN DOUGHERTY, et al., Defendants. 13 14 15 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint. Dkt. #27. Plaintiff seeks to file a Third Amended Complaint to add the President and Vice 16 President of Whatcom Community College as Defendants to this action. Dkt. #27. Defendants 17 oppose the motion, arguing that the proposed new Defendants have no pertinent relation to the 18 claims alleged. Dkt. #31. For the reasons discussed herein, the Court agrees with Defendants 19 and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. 20 21 22 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) governs the amendment of pleadings. Under Rule 15(a)(2), leave to amend should be freely given “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The Ninth Circuit has held that leave to amend should be granted with “extreme 23 24 25 liberality.” DCD Programs, LTD. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987). The Court must consider whether the proposed amendment (1) would be futile, (2) is the product of undue 26 ORDER - 1         1 delay, (3) would prejudice the non-moving party, and (4) was brought in bad faith. Id. (stating 2 all four factors). The opposing party bears the burden of showing prejudice, id. at 187, which 3 is the most important factor in whether to grant a motion for leave to amend. Eminence Capital, 4 5 6 LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (presumption in favor of granting leave exists absent prejudice or a strong showing of any of the remaining factors). Based on Plaintiff’s filing, the Court finds that amendment at this juncture would be 7 8 9 futile. “Futility alone can justify the denial of a motion to amend.” Nunes v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 815, 818 (9th Cir. 2003). There is nothing in Plaintiff’s instant motion that identifies how the 10 proposed Defendants were involved in her alleged claims, nor are there any factual allegations 11 related to the two proposed Defendants. According to the allegations made by Plaintiff in her 12 Second Amended Complaint, the only persons involved in the investigation and the subsequent 13 meeting leading to her claims are already named Defendants. Dkt. #18. 14 15 16 Further, Plaintiff has failed to attach her proposed amendments to her motion in violation of the Court’s Local Rules. See LCR 15. Thus, the Court has no ability to review what Plaintiff proposes to amend at this juncture. 17 18 19 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Dkt. #27) is DENIED. DATED this 11 day of July, 2017. 20 21 A 22 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 ORDER - 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?