Opinion
2:11-cv-01648-GEB-GGH.
October 5, 2011
ORDER
This matter is deemed suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. R. 230(g).
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 15(a)(2) to "more clearly state its claims for relief, and correct errors in its [Complaint.]" (Pl.'s Mot. 2:1-3.) Defendants oppose the motion.
Defendants argue leave to amend should be denied since "Plaintiff's lack of standing cannot be overcome by amendment, regardless of any additional facts that Plaintiff may add to its amended complaint." (Defs.' Opp'n 2:6-8.) Leave to amend should be denied when "the proffered amendments would be nothing more than an exercise in futility." Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995). However, the amendments Plaintiff is seeking have not been shown to be futile since they are relevant to the standing issue.
Defendants also argue leave to amend should be denied since "Defendants would indeed be prejudiced as they would be required to draft and file a second Motion to Dismiss." (Defs.' Opp'n 2:17-18.) However, "the prejudice Defendants complain of is nothing more than the inconvenience always present when a party is required to defend against a law suit." Davis v. Social Serv. Coordinators, Inc., 2011 WL 3207818, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 28, 2011).
Therefore, Plaintiff is granted leave to file the proposed amended Complaint filed on August 29, 2011, provided that this First Amended Complaint is filed within ten days of the date on which this order is filed.