Gruder v. Crisp Marketing, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ROBERT GRUDER, an individual, Case No.: 3:20-cv-00796-BEN-AHG 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED v. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 13 AMENDED COMPLAINT CRISP MARKETING, LLC, 14 Defendant. [ECF No. 17] 16 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Robert Gruder’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint. ECF No. 17. Defendant Crisp Marketing, LLC (“Crisp”) did not file a response. The Motion is now ripe for determination.

20 I. LEGAL STANDARD 21 Once a responsive pleading is filed, a plaintiff can amend a complaint “only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Id.; see also Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990) (stating that leave to amend is to be granted with “extreme liberality”). “The power to grant leave to amend, however, is entrusted to the discretion of the district court, which determines the propriety of a motion to amend by ascertaining the presence of any of four factors: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, and/or futility.” Serra v. Lappin, 600 |] F.3d 1191, 1200 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Generally, ||amendments adding claims are granted more freely than amendments adding parties.

3 || Union Pacific R.R. Co. v. Nevada Power Co., 950 F.2d 1429, 1432 (9th Cir. 1991).

ANALYSIS 5 Plaintiff initially sued Crisp for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer || Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq. (the “TCPA”). Through his Motion, Plaintiff ||seeks to add Boomsourcing, LLC d/b/a Boom.ai (“Boom”), a Utah limited liability ||company, as a Defendant in this action. Mot., ECF No. 17, 2. Plaintiff alleges that || through discovery he learned that Crisp “associated with two other entities to initiate |} unlawful calls to Plaintiff,’ one of which is Boom. /d. Plaintiff further states the other |/entity recently filed for bankruptcy, and thus, he is not adding that entity to this action.

13 The Court finds the present Motion is not made in bad faith, would not cause || undue delay to these proceedings, would not prejudice the opposing party, and would not || be futile. See Serra, 600 F.3d at 1200. Accordingly, the Motion is granted.

16 CONCLUSION 17 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 17) is || GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file his Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days of this || Order.

20 IT IS SO ORDERED. ( i 21 Dated: January 4, 2021 on, Roger T. Benitez 22 United States District Judge