Long v. SSRM Enterprises LLC

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Seth Long, No. CV-23-00030-TUC-JGZ 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. SSRM Enterprises LLC, 13 Defendant.

15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Long’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (Doc. 14). Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Long may amend his pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the Court’s leave.

18 No answer or responsive pleading has been filed by Defendant SSRM Enterprises LLC, and no appearance has been entered on its behalf. (See Docs. 9, 13.) If the underlying facts relied upon by a plaintiff may be a proper subject of relief, he ought to be afforded an opportunity to test his claim on the merits. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).

22 District courts must therefore “freely give leave” to amend absent an apparent reason. Id. Delay alone does not provide sufficient grounds for denying leave to amend; the crucial factor is prejudice. United States v. Pend Oreille Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 926 F.2d 1502, 1511 (9th Cir. 1991). Because SSRM Enterprises LLC has not answered or otherwise responded to Long’s Complaint, the Court concludes granting leave to amend will not cause it prejudice. The Court will therefore grant Long’s Motion.

28 // 1 IT IS ORDERED that Long’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint 2|| (Doc. 14) is granted. Long must file the First Amended Complaint by July 21, 2023.

3 Dated this 18th day of July, 2023.

5 * 7 □ Honorable J cml 7; United States District Judge _2-