UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 30, 2009
CHANZIE KRISTINA COX AND VLADIMIR MARTYNOV, PLAINTIFFS,
COUNTY OF YUBA, COUNTY OF SUTTER,COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, CITY OF SACRAMENTO, CITY OF YUBA CITY, CITY OF MARYSVILLE, AND DOES 1-100. DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Morrison C. England, Jr. United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Presently before the Court is a Motion by Plaintiffs Chanzie Kristina Cox and Vladimir Martynov ("Plaintiffs") seeking leave to file a First Amended Complaint. Concurrently before the court is a Motion by Defendant City of Sacramento ("Defendant") to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint.*fn1
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), once a responsive pleading has been served on a Plaintiff, the Plaintiff may only amend its pleading with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)-(2). The court should freely give leave when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Generally, the five factors of bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to opposing party, futility of amendment, and whether plaintiff has previously amended complaint are considered when assessing the propriety of a motion to amend. Ahlmeyer v. Nevada Sys. of Higher Educ., 555 F.3d 1051, 1055 (9th Cir. 2009).
Here, Plaintiffs have not previously filed an amended complaint. Furthermore, Defendant has filed a Statement of Non-Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend.
In light of these factors, Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend is hereby GRANTED. (Docket No. 12) Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is therefore DENIED as moot. (Docket No. 11) Accordingly, the December 3, 2009 motions hearing is vacated.
IT IS SO ORDERED.