Veterans Rideshare, Inc. v. Navistar International Corporation

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA VETERANS RIDESHARE, INC., et al., Case No. 20-cv-01304-BAS-LL 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING JOINT MOTION NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL FOR LEAVE TO FILE CORPORATION, et al., 15 AMENDED ANSWER (ECF No. Defendants. 30); AND 17 (2) DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE FIRST AMENDED ANSWER ON THE DOCKET 21 On October 28, 2021, this Court denied without prejudice the parties’ joint motion for Defendants to file a First Amended Answer to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint on the ground that the parties’ submission was noncompliant with Local Rule 15.1(b) (ECF No. 27). (Order, ECF No. 28.) The parties filed a renewed motion pursuant to the Order (ECF No. 30), which shows, “through redlining, underlining, [and] strikeouts,” Defendants’ proposed amendments to its operative Answer as required by the local civil rules (First Am. Ans., ECF No. 30-1). In essence, Defendants’ proposed First Amended Answer (1) add an affirmative defense based on the doctrine of comparative negligence 1 (2) add new factual allegations to the existent affirmative defense predicated upon || Defendants’ contention they were not the proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries.

3 (First Am. Ans. 9 137-38.)

4 “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.’” (quoting Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc))).

9 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).

11 Considering the broad policy favoring amendments to the pleadings and the joint 12 nature of the request for leave to amend, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion. (ECF ||No. 30). The First Amended Answer is deemed filed and served as of the date of this |}Order. Defendants are ORDERED to file on the docket a clean version of the First || Amended Answer.

16 IT IS SO ORDERED.

18 || DATED: November 1, 2021 ( yi A (Haphan 6 19 United States District Judge