From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sebastian v. One Brands, LLC

United States District Court, Southern District of California
Aug 4, 2021
3:20-cv-9-L-MDD (S.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2021)

Opinion

3:20-cv-9-L-MDD

08-04-2021

BRITTANY SEBASTIAN, Plaintiff v. ONE BRANDS LLC, Defendant


ORDER ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF 58)

Hon M. James Lorenz United States District Judge

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint. (ECF 58). There is no opposition. (See Docket). The Court decides the matter on the papers submitted without oral argument. Civ. L. R. 7.1. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the motion.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), courts “should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). “This policy is to be applied with extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003).

In general, when ruling on a motion to amend, courts consider: undue delay, the movant's bad faith, prejudice to the opposing party, whether the movant previously amended their complaint, and futility of amendment. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004). The most important factor is prejudice. Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. Absent that, or a strong showing of the other factors, there is a “presumption . . . in favor of granting leave to amend.” Id. (emphasis original).

Plaintiff requests leave to (1) remove the claims related to sugar, (2) add allegations about nutritional facts and changes that were made after the lawsuit was filed, (3) remove the claim for injunctive relief, (4) add a claim for catalyst fees, and (5) reassert claims against The Hershey Company. (ECF 58).

Plaintiffs request is timely. There is nothing to suggest Plaintiff is acting in bad faith. There is also nothing to suggest Defendant will suffer undue prejudice if the complaint is amended. The case is in its early stages. Moreover, this is the first request for leave. And the proposed amendments are not futile. Therefore, the Court GRANTS the motion. Plaintiff has until August 9, 2021 to file the proposed First Amended Complaint (ECF 58-3, Exhibit B).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Sebastian v. One Brands, LLC

United States District Court, Southern District of California
Aug 4, 2021
3:20-cv-9-L-MDD (S.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2021)
Case details for

Sebastian v. One Brands, LLC

Case Details

Full title:BRITTANY SEBASTIAN, Plaintiff v. ONE BRANDS LLC, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, Southern District of California

Date published: Aug 4, 2021

Citations

3:20-cv-9-L-MDD (S.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2021)