The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT (Docket Entry No. 14)
On October 27, 2011, Plaintiff Antonio Simpao Moya, Jr., filed a complaint against Defendants Avalon Health Care, Inc., and Avalon Care Center of Modesto, LLC, alleging wrongful termination. (Doc. 1.) On November 29, 2011, Defendants answered the complaint. (Doc. 8.)
On January 31, 2012, this Court issued a Scheduling Conference Order. The parties did not anticipate amendments to the pleadings at that time. (Doc. 12.)
On July 13, 2012, Plaintiff filed his Notice of Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 14; see also Docs. 15-17.) On August 3, 2012, Defendants filed their Non-Opposition to the motion. (Doc. 19.)
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a plaintiff may amend his complaint "once as a matter of course" and without leave of court, before a response has been filed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1); Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995). Here, because Defendants filed an answer to Plaintiff's original complaint, leave of Court is required. More specifically, rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in relevant part:
Other Amendments. In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.
The United States Supreme Court has stated that
[i]n 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 v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
This policy is "to be applied with extreme liberality." Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). The Ninth Circuit has summarized the factors to be considered by the court to include: (1) undue delay; (2) bad faith; (3) prejudice to the opponent; and (4) futility of amendment. Loehr v. Ventura County Cmty. Coll. Dist., 743 F.2d 1310, 1319 (9th Cir. 1984). However, not all of these factors merit equal weight. Eminence Capital, LLC, v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d at 1052. It is the consideration of prejudice that carries the ...