Solt v. CSA America Testing & Certification LLC et al

Filing 30

ORDER granting Plaintiff's 27 Unopposed Motion to File Amended Complaint. Plaintiff shall file the Amended Complaint no later than 5/10/2024. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (MJV)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8

Case No. C24-112-RSM

DENA SOLT,

9

Plaintiff,

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

v.
CSA AMERICA TESTING &
CERTIFICATION LLC d/b/a CSA GROUP,
a foreign limited liability company, CSA
AMERICA STANDARDS, INC. d/b/a CSA
AMERICA STANDARDS, a foreign
nonprofit corporation, CSA AMERICA
INC., a foreign corporation, and CSA
CANADA INC., d/b/a CSA GROUP, a
foreign corporation,
Defendants.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

ORDER GRANTING
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED
COMPLAINT

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File
an Amended Complaint. Dkt. #27. Defendants consent to this filing. Id. at 1.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), a “court should freely give leave [to amend] when
justice so requires,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Courts apply this policy with “extreme liberality.”
Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003). Five factors are
commonly used to assess the propriety of granting leave to amend: (1) bad faith, (2) undue delay,

24
ORDER - 1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

(3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of amendment, and (5) whether plaintiff has
previously amended the complaint. Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 373 (9th Cir.
1990); Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). In conducting this five-factor analysis, the
court must grant all inferences in favor of allowing amendment. Griggs v. Pace Am. Group, Inc.,
170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999). In addition, the court must be mindful of the fact that, for each
of these factors, the party opposing amendment has the burden of showing that amendment is not
warranted. DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987); see also
Richardson v. United States, 841 F.2d 993, 999 (9th Cir. 1988).
Plaintiff has not previously filed an amended complaint, and Defendants consent to
Plaintiff filing an amended complaint. Plaintiff seeks to amend her Complaint to correct the entity
names of the Defendants and to amend sections pertaining to the Court’s jurisdiction, venue, and
specific claims. Dkt. #27 at 1. The Court finds good reason to grant Plaintiff’s Motion.
Having reviewed the Motion and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and
ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint, Dkt. #27, is GRANTED.
Plaintiff shall file the Amended Complaint no later than May 10, 2024.

16
17

DATED this 9th day of May, 2024.

18

A

19

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
ORDER - 2