UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 13, 2011
JUAN RANGEL, AN INDIVIDUAL AND FINANCIAL PLUS INVESTMENTS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFF,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND ERIC HOLDER, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 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 1/28/11] [LINK TO DOCKET NOS. 21 & 26]
Presently before the court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to file Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 21). Having reviewed the parties' submissions, the court grants the motion and adopts the following order.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), which governs requests for leave to amend pleadings, provides that "leave shall be freely given when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).
The Ninth Circuit has held that amendments should be granted with "extreme liberality" in order "to facilitate decision on the merits, rather than on the pleadings or technicalities." United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981). Accordingly, the burden of persuading the court that leave should not be granted rests with the non-moving party. See DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186-87 (9th Cir. 1987). Leave to amend should be freely given unless the opposing party makes a showing of undue prejudice, bad faith, or dilatory motive on the part of the moving party. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); see also Ascon Properties, Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989).
Here, Defendants do not argue, let alone show, that they will be unduly prejudiced or that Plaintiffs have acted with bad faith or dilatory intent. (Opposition at 4). Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to file Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall file a Second Amended Complaint in accordance with clerk's office procedures within twenty days of the date of this order, by August 2, 2011. This order shall not preclude Defendants from challenging venue or raising other defenses in response to the Second Amended Complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.