Ratcliffe v. Apex Systems, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BERNICE RATCLIFFE, Case No.: 3:19-cv-01688-WQH-MDD individually and on behalf of other members of the general ORDER public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. APEX SYSTEMS, LLC., a Virginia limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants.

HAYES, Judge: The matter before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 19).

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On August 5, 2019, Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a Complaint in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego, assigned case number 37-2019- 00040686-CU-OE-CTL, against Defendant Apex Systems, LCC (Ex. A, ECF No. 1-2 at 2).

On August 30, 2019, Defendant filed an Answer in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego. (Ex. B, ECF No. 1-3 at 2).

1 On September 4, 2019, Defendant removed the action to this Court pursuant to 28 2 U.S.C. § 1332(a), § 1332(c), § 1332(d), § 1441, § 1446, § 1453. (ECF No. 1). Defendant contends that this Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) (the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) and diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 5 1332(a). Id. at 1-2.

6 On September 17, 2019, Defendant filed the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

7 (ECF No. 7). On November 13, 2019, this Court issued an Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings without prejudice. (ECF No. 16). The Court stated that “[a]ny motion to file an amended complaint shall be filed within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order.” Id. at 13.

11 On December 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 19). On December 23, 2019, Defendant filed a statement of non- opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 20).

15 LEGAL STANDARD 16 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 mandates that leave to amend “be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “This policy is to be applied with extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (quoting Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001)). The Supreme Court has identified several factors district courts should consider when deciding whether to grant leave to amend: “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, [and] futility of amendment.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); see also Smith v. Pac. Props. Dev. Corp., 358 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th Cir. 2004).

26 “Not all of the [Foman] factors merit equal weight. As this circuit and others have held, it is the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight.”

28 Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. “The party opposing amendment bears the burden of || showing prejudice.” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987).

2 ||““Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman factors, there exists ||a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Eminence Capital, 4 F.3d at 1052.

5 RULING OF THE COURT 6 Defendant filed a statement of non-opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File 7 First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 20). Defendant states that it “does not oppose || Ratcliffe’s Motion” “[u]nder the liberal standard for amending pleadings under Federal || Rule of Civil Procedure 15.” Id. at 2. The Court finds that there has been no showing that || any of the Foman factors warrants deviating from the “presumption under Rule 15(a) in || favor of granting leave to amend.” Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052.

12 Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 19) is || GRANTED. Plaintiff may file the First Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days of || the entry of this Order.

15 |} Dated: January 13, 2020 BME: Me Z. A a 16 Hon. William Q. Hayes 7 United States District Court