Velez v. Bail Hotline Bail Bonds, Inc.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KRISTOPHER VELEZ, No. 2:18-cv-01914-MCE-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER CITY OF SACRAMENTO et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Kristopher Velez’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 11. Defendants City of Sacramento, Daniel Farnsworth, John Harshbarger, American Surety Company, and Bail Hotline Bail Bonds, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) filed Statements of Non-Opposition.

21 ECF Nos. 14, 15. Rule 15(a), under which Plaintiff’s Motion is brought, provides that “leave [to amend] shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).

23 The policy of favoring amendments to pleadings, as evinced by Rule 15(a), “should be applied with extreme liberality.” United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981).

26 /// /// /// 1 Given that liberal standard, and in view of Defendants’ non-opposition to Plaintiff's | request, Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 11, || is hereby GRANTED." 4 IT |S SO ORDERED.

5 || Dated: November 20, 2019 7 MORRISON C. ENGLAND, J UNITED STATES DISTRI | matters submited onthe ists. ED. Local Rule 290) oroeten ess