From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Johnson v. Mason Cnty.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
Mar 28, 2016
CASE NO. C14-5832 RBL (W.D. Wash. Mar. 28, 2016)

Opinion

CASE NO. C14-5832 RBL

03-28-2016

PEGGY JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. MASON COUNTY, et al., Defendants.


ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND [Dkt. #39]

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Johnson's Motion to Amend her complaint a second time. [Dkt. #39] Johnson seeks to add factual allegations and replace "John Doe" defendants with actual defendants. Defendants argue that it is too late to amend the complaint again and (somewhat contradictorily) that Plaintiff has little to gain from doing so. It argues primarily that because this court's own scheduling order imposed a long-since passed date for amendment, Johnson's Motion is measured against Rule 16, not Rule 15, and the question is the plaintiff's good cause, not prejudice to the defendant.

Johnson claims that she only recently discovered the identity of the "Doe" defendants, and that she is substituting—actually naming—the true parties, not adding entirely new parties.

Leave to amend a complaint under Rule 15(a) "shall be freely given when justice so requires." Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Services, LLC, 629 F.3d 876, 892 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Forman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). This policy is "to be applied with extreme liberality." Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). In determining whether to grant leave under Rule 15, courts consider five factors: "bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint." United States v. Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir. 2011) (emphasis added). Among these factors, prejudice to the opposing party carries the greatest weight. Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052.

A proposed amendment is futile "if no set of facts can be proved under the amendment to the pleadings that would constitute a valid and sufficient claim or defense." Gaskill v. Travelers Ins. Co., No. 11-cv-05847-RJB, 2012 WL 1605221, at *2 (W.D. Wash. May 8, 2012) (citing Sweaney v. Ada County, Idaho, 119 F.3d 1385, 1393 (9th Cir.1997)).

Under Rule 16(b), a plaintiff must show good cause for not having amended her complaint before the time specified in the scheduling order. See Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000)). Prejudice to the opposing party may be considered, but "the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party's reasons for seeking modification." Johnson v. Mammoth Rec., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).

Johnson has demonstrated that she was diligent and that the new parties are the Doe Defendants that she named initially. Defendants do not claim, and have not shown, prejudice. Amendment is proper under both Rules.

> > >

>>

The Motion to Amend is GRANTED. Plaintiff should file the amended complaint by April 1.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this 28th day of March, 2016.

/s/_________

Ronald B. Leighton

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Johnson v. Mason Cnty.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
Mar 28, 2016
CASE NO. C14-5832 RBL (W.D. Wash. Mar. 28, 2016)
Case details for

Johnson v. Mason Cnty.

Case Details

Full title:PEGGY JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. MASON COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

Date published: Mar 28, 2016

Citations

CASE NO. C14-5832 RBL (W.D. Wash. Mar. 28, 2016)