From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

SF 2402 LLC v. B.F.B., Inc.

United States District Court, Southern District of California
Apr 15, 2022
No. 21-CV-906-GPC (S.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2022)

Opinion

21-CV-906-GPC

04-15-2022

SF 2402 LLC, Plaintiff, v. B.F.B., INC., d/b/a BRADFORD FOX BUILDERS AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10, Defendants.


ORDER GRANTING:

(1) GRANTING DEFENDANT/COUNTERCLAIMANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED ANSWER [ECF NO. 27];

(2) GRANTING DEFENDANT/COUNTERCLAIMANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT [ECF NO. 28]; AND

(3) DIRECTING DEFENDANT/COUNTERCLAIMANT TO FILE THEIR AMENDED PLEADINGS ON OR BEFORE APRIL 20, 2022

INTRODUCTION

Before the Court are two motions filed by Defendant/Counterclaimant Bradford Fox Builders (hereafter, “BFB”): (1) a motion for leave to file a first amended answer to Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant SF 2402's Complaint (ECF No. 27); and (2) a motion for leave to file a first amended third-party complaint (ECF No. 28). Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant SF 2402 (hereafter “SF 2402”) filed notices of nonopposition as to both motions by BFB. ECF Nos. 30, 31. For the reasons stated below, the Court hereby GRANTS BFB's motion for leave to amend its answer to SF 2402's complaint, and GRANTS BFB's motion for leave to amend its third-party complaint. The Court further finds that this matter is suitable for disposition without a motion hearing under Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1) and hereby VACATES the motion hearing set for May 13, 2022.

DISCUSSION

BFB moves to amend its answer to the Complaint filed by Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant SF 2402 LLC, and moves to amend its third-party complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). ECF Nos. 27, 28. BFB has attached to each motion the amended pleadings it seeks to file.

Rule 15(a) provides, in pertinent part, that “a party may amend the party's pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). In the Ninth Circuit, courts are instructed to grant leave to amend with “extreme liberality.” Morongo Valley Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Hurn v. Retirement Fund Trust of the Plumbing heading and Piping Indus. Of Southern California, 648 F.2d 1252, 1254 (9th Cir. 1981) (“The Supreme Court has instructed the lower federal courts to heed carefully the command of rule 15(a) [] by freely granting leave to amend when justice so requires.”). To determine whether to grant leave to amend, the court looks to five factors: (1) undue delay, (2) bad faith), (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of the amendment, and (5) whether the party has previously amended the pleading. Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004). In the analysis, “[n]ot all factors merit equal weight, ” and “prejudice to the opposing party . . . carries the greatest weight.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspen, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003); see Genentech, Inc. v. Abbot Labs, 127 F.R.D. 529, 530 (N.D. Cal. 1989) (“The single most important factor is whether prejudice will result to the nonmovant.”). To that end, the party opposing an amendment is required to demonstrate the prejudice they expect to face as a result of any proposed amendment. In re Circuit Breaker Litig., 175 F.R.D. 547, 551 (C.D. Cal. 1997).

Here, Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant SF 2402 has filed notices of nonopposition to BFB's motions for leave to amend its pleadings. ECF Nos. 30, 31. Therefore, prejudice-the most significant factor in the Rule 15(a) analysis-is rendered moot. Indeed, SF 2402's notices essentially provide consent to BFB's motions. As to the remaining Rule 15(a) factors, the Court finds there is no indication of undue delay, bad faith, or futility. The proposed amended pleadings would be BFB's first amended answer, and the first amended third-party complaint, which indicates they have not abused Rule 15(a)'s liberal standard in this case by making numerous requests to amend.

BFB's proposed amended answer includes two new affirmative defenses, as described in their motion, and included in the proposed amended answer. ECF No. 27-1 at 3-4; see ECF No. 27-1 at 15-19 (Ex. A, Proposed Amended Answer). The proposed amended third-party complaint seeks to add eight new third-party defendants “that are responsible in whole or [i]n part for the acts, events, and circumstances” alleged in SF 2402's complaint and “BFB is informed and believes that any injuries and/or damages suffered by [SF 2402] were contributed to by the negligence or other fault of Third-Party Defendants” named in the amended complaint. ECF No. 28 at 2; ECF No. 28 at 5 (Ex. A, Proposed Third-Party Complaint).

Because SF 2402 consents to the amended pleadings proposed by BFB through the notices of non-opposition, and there is no indication that the amended pleadings run afoul of the Rule 15(a) factors, the Court hereby GRANTS BFB's motion to file a first amended answer and GRANTS BFB's motion to file a first amended third-party complaint. The Court ORDERS that BFB file their amended pleadings, as they appear in the instant motions, on or before April 20, 2022 .

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

SF 2402 LLC v. B.F.B., Inc.

United States District Court, Southern District of California
Apr 15, 2022
No. 21-CV-906-GPC (S.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2022)
Case details for

SF 2402 LLC v. B.F.B., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:SF 2402 LLC, Plaintiff, v. B.F.B., INC., d/b/a BRADFORD FOX BUILDERS AND…

Court:United States District Court, Southern District of California

Date published: Apr 15, 2022

Citations

No. 21-CV-906-GPC (S.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2022)