Smith v. Dougherty et al
ORDER denying plaintiff's 27 Motion to Amend signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS) cc Lisa Smith
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
Case No. C16-1818RSM
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS TO AMEND
MEGAN DOUGHERTY, et al.,
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
President of Whatcom Community College as Defendants to this action. Dkt. #27. Defendants
oppose the motion, arguing that the proposed new Defendants have no pertinent relation to the
claims alleged. Dkt. #31. For the reasons discussed herein, the Court agrees with Defendants
and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.
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
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
ORDER - 1
delay, (3) would prejudice the non-moving party, and (4) was brought in bad faith. Id. (stating
all four factors). The opposing party bears the burden of showing prejudice, id. at 187, which
is the most important factor in whether to grant a motion for leave to amend. Eminence Capital,
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
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
proposed Defendants were involved in her alleged claims, nor are there any factual allegations
related to the two proposed Defendants. According to the allegations made by Plaintiff in her
Second Amended Complaint, the only persons involved in the investigation and the subsequent
meeting leading to her claims are already named Defendants. Dkt. #18.
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.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Dkt. #27) is DENIED.
DATED this 11 day of July, 2017.
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?