Lundstrom v. Young

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BRIAN LUNDSTROM, Case No.: 18-cv-2856-GPC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING LIGAND’S v. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWER AND DEFENSES TO CARLA YOUNG, an individual; SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. [ECF No. 146] 401(K) PLAN; and DOES 1 through 20, 17 Defendant.

19 On February 23, 2023, Defendants Ligand Pharmaceuticals and Ligand Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 401(k) Plan (“Defendants” or collectively “Ligand”) filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Answer and Defenses to the Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 146. The Court set a briefing schedule. ECF No. 147. On March 17, 2023, Plaintiff Brian Lundstrom (“Plaintiff” or “Lundstrom”) filed a Non-Opposition. ECF No. 153.

24 A party seeking to amend a pleading past a scheduling order deadline must show “good cause” for such relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). A court should grant leave to amend a pleading “freely” and “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). A court || should determine whether the moving party was diligent in seeking amendment and || whether there is sufficient prejudice to the non-moving party to justify denial of the ||motion to amend. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. || 1992).

5 The Court finds that Ligand was diligent in seeking amendment and that Plaintiff is || not seriously prejudiced by amendment at this stage, indeed Plaintiff does not oppose the ||amendment. See ECF No. 153. Because “[R]ule 15’s policy of favoring amendments to || pleadings should be applied with extreme liberality,” the Court hereby GRANTS || Ligand’s Motion, and VACATKES the hearing currently scheduled for April 7, 2023.

10 || Defendant Ligand shall file its amended answer within two (2) days of this Order’s 11 issuance.

12 IT IS SO ORDERED.

13 Dated: March 21, 2023 =< 15 United States District Judge 28 18-cv-2856-GPC