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

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