Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Brian Reed v. City of Modesto et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


November 13, 2012

BRIAN REED, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CITY OF MODESTO ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT (Document 33)

INTRODUCTION

On October 22, 2012, Plaintiff, Brian Reed ("Plaintiff") filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint to add additional claims. On November 7, 2012, Defendants City of Modesto, Michael Harden, Ron Ziya and Caelli Koehler filed a non-opposition to the motion. In light of the filing of the non-opposition, the court has determined that this matter is suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(c). Having considered all written materials submitted, Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED. The hearing scheduled for November 30, 2012 at 9:30 is VACATED.

DISCUSSION

Under Rule 15(a), a party 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). However, in all other circumstances, a party may amend its pleading with the opposing party's written consent or by obtaining leave to amend by the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 15(a)(2) provides that a court "should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires." The United States Supreme Court has stated:

[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 2003) (citations omitted).

Here, Plaintiff has moved to amend the complaint to add additional state law claims. Defendants have filed a non-opposition to the motion. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), Plaintiff shall be permitted to file an amended complaint.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for the above reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to file an Amended complaint is GRANTED. For purposes of clarifying the docket, the Clerk of the Court shall file Plaintiff's Amended Complaint as a separate docket entry. (Doc. 33-1). Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is deemed filed as of the date of this order. Defendants' Answer to the Amended Complaint is due no later than 14 days after the service of the amended pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P 15(a)(3). The hearing scheduled for November 30, 2012 at 9:30 is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20121113

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.