1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JOSE DANIEL CASTILLO-ANTONIO, Case No. 19-cv-03434-JSC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 9 v. TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD DEFENDANT 10 ARIKAT DARWEESH, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 8 Defendants. 11

12 Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint to add a defendant.1 13 (Dkt. No. 8.) The motion is unopposed and oral argument is scheduled for December 5, 2019. 14 Having considered the motion, the Court vacates the hearing, see N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and 15 terminates the motion because it is unnecessary at this stage of the proceedings. 16 As the named defendants have yet to appear in this action despite being served and have 17 thus not filed a responsive pleading, Plaintiff may “amend as a right” pursuant to Federal Rule of 18 Civil Procedure 15(a). See Ramirez v. Cty. of San Bernardino,

(9th Cir. 19 2015) (noting that where a responsive pleading is required from defendants, a plaintiff has the 20 right to amend “within twenty-one days of service of a responsive pleading or service of a motion 21 under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever comes first”) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B)). Neither 22 the text of Rule 15 nor the 2009 advisory committee’s notes to the Rule suggest that a party cannot 23 amend as a matter of right before the defendant files a responsive pleading, as provided by the pre- 24 2009 version of Rule 15(a). See Mayle v. Felix,

(2005) (“Before a responsive 25 pleading is served, pleadings may be amended once as a ‘matter of course.’”) (quoting pre-2009 26

27 1 Plaintiff’s counsel attests that the defendant-to-be-added, HMDA Inc., “holds the current 1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)); see also In re Cathode Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig., No. C-07-5944-SC, 2

, at 4 3-4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2014) (rejecting the defendants’ argument that “if 3 twenty-one days passes from the date of service, but an opposing party never files a responsive 4 || pleading or Rule 12 motion, a plaintiff cannot amend without court order”). 5 Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is not necessary because he may amend as a matter of right 6 pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1)(B). 7 This Order terminates Dkt. No. 8. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: November 18, 2019 10

JAGQUELINE SCOTT CORL 12 United States Magistrate Judge

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28