United States District Court for the Southern District of California, 2020

Maharaj v. Charter Communications, Inc.

Maharaj v. Charter Communications, Inc.
United States District Court for the Southern District of California · Decided May 15, 2020
Maharaj v. Charter Communications, Inc.

Trial Court Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DEVANAN MAHARAJ, Case No. 3:20-cv-00064-BAS-LL Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 12 UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE v. TO FILE FIRST AMENDED 13 COMPLAINT CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, 14 INC., et al., [ECF No. 19] 15 Defendants.

17 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint.

18 (ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff seeks to correct factual allegations and make other minor formatting and typographical edits to the pleading. The motion is unopposed by Defendants. (See id. at 2–3; Ex. 3 to Decl. of David X. Lin, ECF No. 19-1.)

21 “In general, a court should liberally allow a party to amend its pleading.” Sonoma Cty. Ass’n of Retired Emps. v. Sonoma Cty., 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)); see also Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001) (“A district court ‘shall grant leave to amend freely when justice so requires.’”). Further, a party may amend its pleading without a court order where the opposing party consents in writing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

27 In light of the broad policy favoring amendments to pleadings and Defendant’s non- opposition to amendment, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a First |} Amended Complaint (ECF No. 19). The First Amended Complaint is deemed filed and ||served as of the date of this Order. The Clerk shall file the proposed amended pleading, || attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of David X. Lin (ECF No. 19-1), on the docket as || the First Amended Complaint.

5 Further, because the Court has granted Plaintiffs motion, the Court TERMINATES || Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (ECF No. 14). See Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 11693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (“[T]he general rule is that an amended ||complaint supercedes the original complaint and renders it without legal effect[.]’’).

9 ||Defendant may, at its discretion, renew the Motion to Dismiss as to Plaintiff’s First |} Amended Complaint.

11 IT IS SO ORDERED.

12 , || DATED: May 15, 2020 (pill 4 (Doha 6 14 United States District Judge

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.