Guy v. Lorenzen

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DEOVANTE L. GUY, Case No. 20-cv-02027-BAS-BLM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. UNOPPOSED MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT (ECF No. 38) MATTHEW LORENZEN, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Deovante L. Guy’s unopposed, amended motion for leave to file Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”). (ECF No. 38.) Through the amendment, Guy seeks to substitute the following individuals as Does 1, 2, and 3: San Diego Police Officers Paul MacIntyre, Christopher Senior, and Cory Sims. (Id.) Plaintiff represents that the true names of these officers were unknown to him until their identities were revealed through discovery. (Id.) 23 Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(2) provides that a party opposing a motion must file either an opposition or a statement of non-opposition no later than fourteen calendar days prior to the noticed hearing date. If a party fails to comply with this rule, “that failure may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion or other request for ruling by the court.”

27 Civ. L.R. 7.1(f)(3)(c). Here, because Plaintiff’s amended motion noticed the hearing date of January 31, 2022, Defendant had until January 17, 2022, to oppose the motion. No || opposition was filed as of the date of the Order. Because Defendants were made aware of ||the motion and had ample time to respond to it, the Court deems their non-opposition to || Plaintiff's motion as consent to granting it. Civ. L.R. 7.1(f)(3)(c).

4 In addition, the Court’s own review of the record supports granting Plaintiff leave to || file the TAC. Under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a post-answer ||amendment may only be filed with the leave of court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The leave || to amend should be freely given “when justice so requires.” Jd. “The propriety of a motion || for leave to amend is generally determined by reference to several factors: (1) undue delay; ||(2) bad faith; (3) futility of amendment; and (4) prejudice to the opposing party.” Jnt’l || ’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Republic Airlines, 761 F.2d 1386, 1390 (9th 11 1985). None of these factors is present here.

12 Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to amend the pleading. (ECF No. 38.)

13 Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff's first motion to amend the pleading. (ECF || No. 34.) On or before January 31, 2022, Plaintiff shall file the proposed pleading attached ||as Exhibit B to his motion as his Third Amended Complaint.

17 IT IS SO ORDERED.

18 /\ yy || DATED: January 24, 2022 ( itl A (pha □ 20 United States District Judge