Perryman et al v. City of Seattle Police et al

Filing 52

ORDER granting Plaintiff's 46 Motion to Amend Complaint; the Court accepts the amended complaint filed on May 31, 2017 as the operativepleading in this matter, signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT) (cc: Plaintiffs via USPS)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10
11
12

_______________________________________
)
WAYNE PERRYMAN, et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
v.
)
)
CITY OF SEATTLE POLICE, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________)

No. C17-0274RSL
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

13
14

This matter comes before the Court on “Plaintiff’s [sic] Amended January 2017

15

Complaint,” which the Court treated as a motion to amend. Dkt. # 46. The motion is unopposed,

16

and courts “should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

17

15(a)(2). In light of the “strong policy in favor of allowing amendment” (Kaplan v. Rose, 49

18

F.3d 1363, 1370 (9th Cir. 1994)) and the lack of any evidence of “undue delay, bad faith or

19

dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments

20

previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the

21

amendment, or futility of amendment, etc.” (Sonoma County Ass’n of Retired Employees v.

22

Sonoma County, 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and alterations

23

omitted)), the Court accepts the amended complaint filed on May 31, 2017 as the operative

24

pleading in this matter. Prior versions of the complaint are superceded.

25
26
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

1

Dated this 27th day of June, 2017.

2

A
Robert S. Lasnik

3

United States District Judge
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

-2-