B. LYNN WINMILL, U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

B. LYNN WINMILL, U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is Plaintiff Ruben Buenrostro's unopposed Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Dkt. 15). For the reasons explained below, the Court will grant the motion.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in July 2021. After filing his initial complaint- and well before the March 1, 2022 deadline established in the Scheduling Order, see Dkt. 13- plaintiff filed a motion seeking to amend his complaint. Plaintiff explains that he has received a right to sue from the Idaho Human Rights Commission after filing his initial complaint and now seeks to add claims that were untimely prior to his receipt of the right to sue. Defendants have not opposed the motion.

DISCUSSION

Motions to amend are analyzed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). Rule 15(a) is a liberal standard and leave to amend “shall be freely given when justice so requires.” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2006). When determining whether to grant leave to amend, the Court considers five factors to assess whether to grant leave to amend: “(1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of amendment; and (5) whether plaintiff has previously amended his complaint.” Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 373 (9th Cir. 1990).

Having considered these factors, the Court will grant leave to amend. Most significantly, plaintiff is well within the deadline established in the Scheduling Order and the defendants do not oppose the motion. Otherwise, there are no indications of bad faith, undue delay, or prejudice to the opposing party.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs Motion for Amend (Dkt. 15) is GRANTED.

2. Plaintiff is directed to formally file his First Amended Complaint within 7 days of this Order.