UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 25, 2013
LANCE W. LILLIS,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT [DKT. NO. 108]
For the reasons below, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 108.)
Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 108.) Generally, leave to amend should be freely granted and leave should be denied only on a clear showing that competing considerations outweigh the general policy. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 15(a). Factors that could support denial of leave to amend include futility of the proposed amendment. Millar v. Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist., 236 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1113 (N.D. Cal. 2002). Here, Plaintiff seeks leave to amend his first amended complaint to "add additional parties, legal theories, and facts that came in light during the discovery process." (Dkt. No. 108 at 2.) Upon review, the Court finds that the proposed second amended complaint is an exact duplication of the first amended complaint. (See Dkt. No. 108, Exhibit A "Proposed Second Amended Complaint.") The proposed second amended complaint does not add any new defendants, assert any new facts, or allege any new causes of action. Accordingly, the Court finds the proposed second amended complaint is futile. Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the first amended complaint is therefore DENIED.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.