1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 RACHAEL LETICIA GREWELL, Case No. 23-cv-03889-BLF

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE 9 v. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

10 K.B.R. INC., [Re: ECF No. 13] 11 Defendant.

12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiff Rachel Leticia Grewell’s Motion for Leave to File an 14 Amended Complaint (ECF No. 13). Defendant K.B.R. Inc. did not file an opposition to the 15 motion. 16 Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, leave to amend “shall be freely 17 given when justice so requires,” bearing in mind “the underlying purpose of Rule15 . . . [is] to 18 facilitate decision on the merits, rather than on the pleadings or technicalities.” Lopez v. Smith, 19

(9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (quotation marks and citation omitted). In deciding 20 whether to grant leave to amend, the Court must consider the factors set forth by the Supreme 21 Court in Foman v. Davis,

(1962), and discussed at length by the Ninth Circuit in 22 Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2003). A district court ordinarily 23 must grant leave to amend unless one or more of the Foman factors is present: (1) undue delay, 24 (2) bad faith or dilatory motive, (3) repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendment, (4) undue 25 prejudice to the opposing party, or (5) futility of amendment. Eminence Capital,

1052. “[I]t is the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight.” 27

However, a strong showing with respect to one of the other factors may warrant denial of 1 The Court finds that none of the Foman factors are present. Plaintiff has not unduly 2 || delayed in seeking leave to file her First Amended Complaint. Her initial complaint was filed on 3 August 3, 2023, and she sought leave to amend only three months later on November 13, 2023. 4 See ECF No. 1, 13. There is no evidence of bad faith or dilatory motive. Plaintiff’s First 5 Amended Complaint seeks only to add additional violations under the FDCPA, Regulation F 6 || Requirements, and correct clerical errors. See ECF No. 13. Plaintiff has not repeatedly failed to 7 cure deficiencies and the Court does not find that the proposed amendment is futile. Moreover, 8 Defendant is not prejudiced by the amendment—this case is still in its early stages as no discovery 9 || has occurred, no motions have been filed, and the case schedule has not yet been set by the Court. 10 Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff Rachel Leticia Grewell’s Motion for Leave to File 11 an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 13). Plaintiff SHALL file the First Amended Complaint on the 12 || public docket no later than December 1, 2023.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

a 16 Dated: November 28, 2023 faonfanan BETH LABSON FREEMAN 2 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28