Opinion
1:20-cv-01205-DAD-JLT
06-02-2021
DONOVIN LAST, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. M-I, L.L.C., Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED ANSWER
(Doc. No. 12)
This matter is before the court on the unopposed motion for leave to file a first amended answer filed by defendant M-I, L.L.C. on February 26, 2021. (Doc. No. 12.) In particular, defendant seeks to file a first amended answer to add a single affirmative defense. (Id.; see also Doc. No. 12-1 (proposed amended answer)). On April 2, 2021, plaintiff filed a statement of non-opposition to defendant's pending motion. (Doc. No. 14.) Pursuant to General Order No. 617 addressing the public health emergency posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, defendant's motion was taken under submission on the papers. (Doc. No. 13.)
“A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within: (A) 21 days after serving it or (B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service if a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). Otherwise, a party must seek leave of court to amend a pleading or receive the opposing party's written consent. Id.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that leave to amend pleadings “shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Id. Nevertheless, leave to amend need not be granted when the amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue delay in litigation; or (4) is futile. See AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist W. Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757 (9th Cir. 1999)). “Prejudice to the opposing party is the most important factor.” Jackson v. Bank of Haw., 902 F.3d 1385, 1397 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 330-31 (1971)). “The party opposing leave to amend bears the burden of showing prejudice.” Serpa v. SBC Telecomms., 318 F.Supp.2d 865, 870 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (citing DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987)).
Here, by filing a statement of non-opposition to defendant's motion for leave to file a first amended answer, plaintiff has effectively provided defendant with his written consent. (Doc. No. 14.) In addition, by not opposing defendant's motion, plaintiff essentially concedes that he is not prejudiced by the court granting defendant leave to amend its answer.
Accordingly:
1. Defendant's unopposed motion for leave to file a first amended answer (Doc. No. 12) is granted; and
2 The Clerk of the Court is directed to file the proposed first amended answer (Doc. No. 12-1) on the docket captioned as the first amended answer.
IT IS SO ORDERED.