Opinion
C20-0906-RSM
06-28-2021
RICHARD LARRISON, Plaintiff, v. OCEAN BEAUTY SEAFOODS, LLC, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Richard Larrison's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint. Dkt. #34. Defendants Ocean Beauty Seafoods, LLC and Retriever Tender Alaska (collectively, “Defendants”) have not filed a response. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's unopposed motion is GRANTED. Given expiration of case deadlines in this matter, Plaintiff is also ORDERED to show cause as set forth below.
II. BACKGROUND
This matter was filed on December 18, 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. Dkt. #1. After a transfer to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in June 2020, this matter was stayed pending Plaintiff's efforts to retain new counsel. Dkt. #28. On May 3, 2021, this Court issued a revised scheduling order setting forth deadlines for initial disclosures and parties' joint status report. Dkt. #31. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend Complaint on May 14, 2021. Dkt. #34. There has been no activity in this case since Plaintiff's motion, and parties' deadline to submit a joint status report expired on June 14, 2021. Dkt. #31.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Legal Standard
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, (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).
This matter has been pending since December 2019, without significant process by parties. Nevertheless, given that Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend is unopposed, the Court cannot find that Plaintiff's motion was in bad faith, would create undue delay, would prejudice Defendants, or that amendment would be futile. Furthermore, this is Plaintiff's first effort to amend his complaint. For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint, Dkt. #34.
B. Order to Show Cause
Following Plaintiff's motion filed on May 14, 2021, there has been no activity in this case. Parties' deadline to file a joint status report expired on June 14, 2021. The Court needs to hear from Plaintiff on this issue. In Response to this Order, Plaintiff is directed to write a short statement explaining why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. This Response shall not exceed six (6) pages. Accordingly, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause containing the detail above no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order. Plaintiff's failure to file this Response will result in dismissal of this case.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS:
(1) Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend, Dkt. #34, is GRANTED;
(2) Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause containing the detail above no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order.