UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 10, 2009
KEVIN SO, PLAINTIFF,
LAND BASE, LLC; UNIVEST FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.; BORIS LOPATIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A BORIS LOPATIN ASSOCIATES AND CHARLES W. WOODHEAD, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dean D. Pregerson United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT [Motion filed on June 12, 2009]
On June 12, 2009, Plaintiff Kevin So filed his Motion for Leave to file his Second Amended Complaint. Because there has been no opposition to the Motion, and in light of the liberal standard in favor of amendment provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, the Court grants the Motion.
Plaintiff noticed his motion to be heard on July 6, 2009. Pursuant to the Local Rules for the Central District of California, opposing papers on the Motion were due on June 22, 2009, fourteen days prior to that scheduled hearing date. C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-9. No opposition had been filed by that date, and as of the date of this Order, there is still no opposition. Local Rule 7-12 provides that "[t]he failure to file any required paper, or the failure to file it within the deadline, may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion." C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-12, the Court treats the failure to oppose the motion as consent by all served parties the granting of that motion.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) reinforces this conclusion. "The court should freely give leave when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). In light of the federal policy favoring the determination of cases on their merits, this policy is to be applied with "extreme liberality." Eminence Captial, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003). Factors that may justify denying a Rule 15(a)(2) motion include undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of the allowance of the amendment, and futility of amendment. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). "In the absence of any apparent or declared reason," however, "the leave sought should, as the rules require, be 'freely given.'" Id.
Because So moved to amend within the deadline, he need only satisfy the liberal Rule 15(a)(2) standard. As there has been no opposition to his motion, the Court can see no reason leave to amend should not be granted. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file his Second Amended Complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.