Donovin Last v. M-I, L.L.C.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DONOVIN LAST, an individual, on behalf No. 1:20-cv-01205-DAD-JLT of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, 13 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S v. UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 14 FILE A FIRST AMENDED ANSWER M-I, L.L.C., 15 (Doc. No. 12) Defendant.

17 This matter is before the court on the unopposed motion for leave to file a first amended answer filed by defendant M-I, L.L.C. on February 26, 2021. (Doc. No. 12.) In particular, defendant seeks to file a first amended answer to add a single affirmative defense. (Id.; see also Doc. No. 12-1 (proposed amended answer)). On April 2, 2021, plaintiff filed a statement of non- opposition to defendant’s pending motion. (Doc. No. 14.) Pursuant to General Order No. 617 addressing the public health emergency posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, defendant’s motion was taken under submission on the papers. (Doc. No. 13.)

24 “A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within: (A) 21 days after serving it or (B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service if a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Otherwise, a party must seek leave of court to amend a pleading or receive the opposing party’s written consent. Id. 1 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that leave to amend pleadings “shall be | freely given when justice so requires.” Id. Nevertheless, leave to amend need not be granted || when the amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces | an undue delay in litigation; or (4) is futile. See AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist W. Inc., | 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757 (9th Cir. 1999)).

6 | “Prejudice to the opposing party is the most important factor.” Jackson v. Bank of Haw., 902 | F.3d 1385, 1397 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research Inc., 401 U.S. 8 | 321, 330-31 (1971)). “The party opposing leave to amend bears the burden of showing | prejudice.” Serpa v. SBC Telecomms., 318 F. Supp. 2d 865, 870 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (citing DCD | Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987)).

11 Here, by filing a statement of non-opposition to defendant’s motion for leave to file a first | amended answer, plaintiff has effectively provided defendant with his written consent. (Doc. No. | 14.) In addition, by not opposing defendant’s motion, plaintiff essentially concedes that he is not | prejudiced by the court granting defendant leave to amend its answer.

15 Accordingly: 16 1. Defendant’s unopposed motion for leave to file a first amended answer (Doc. No. 12) 17 is granted; and 18 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file the proposed first amended answer 19 (Doc. No. 12-1) on the docket captioned as the first amended answer.

20 | IT IS SO ORDERED. sass - Dated: _ June 2, 2021 Yele A Yad 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE