The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hayes, Judge
The matter before the Court is the Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. # 14) and the Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File a Reply in Support of Motion to Amend Complaint in Excess of 10 Pages (Doc. # 22), both filed by Plaintiff.
On August 14, 2009, Plaintiff Scott Copeland initiated this action by filing a Complaint in this Court. (Doc. # 1).
On October 8, 2009, Defendants Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB ("Lehman") and Aurora Loan Services, Inc. ("Aurora") filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint. (Doc. # 5).
On December 23, 2009, the Court granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the Complaint without prejudice. (Doc. # 11).
On February 5, 2010, Plaintiff filed the Motion to Amend Complaint, accompanied by a proposed first amended complaint. (Doc. # 14).
On February 24, 2010, Defendants Lehman and Aurora filed filed an opposition to the Motion to Amend Complaint. (Doc. # 18). Defendants contend: "The [proposed] amended complaint could not survive a motion to dismiss because it sets forth no claims for which relief could be had.... Because it is futile, the Court should deny leave to amend to file this [proposed amended] complaint." (Doc. # 18 at 1).
On March 17, 2010, Plaintiff filed the Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File a Reply in Support of Motion to Amend Complaint in Excess of 10 Pages (Doc. # 22), accompanied by a reply brief in support of the Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. # 23).
Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that leave to amend "be freely given when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). "This policy is to be applied with extreme liberality." Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted). In Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962), the Supreme Court offered several factors for district courts to consider in deciding whether to grant a motion to amend under Rule 15(a):
In the absence of any apparent or declared reason--such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.--the leave sought should, as the rules require, be 'freely given.'
Foman, 371 U.S. at 182; see also Smith v. Pac. Prop. Dev. Co., 358 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Forman factors).
"Not all of the [Foman] factors merit equal weight. As this circuit and others have held, it is the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight." Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052 (citing DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 185 (9th Cir. 1987)). "The party opposing amendment bears the burden of showing prejudice." DCD Programs, 833 F.2d at 187. "Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman ...