1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CHRISTOPHER ROSSI, Case No. 24-cv-02324-TSH

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 9 v. LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 10 TECHNOGYM USA CORP, Re: Dkt. No. 27 11 Defendant.

12 13 Plaintiff Christopher Rossi seeks leave to file a second amended complaint pursuant to 14 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). ECF No. 27. Defendant Technogym USA Corp has filed a 15 Statement of Non-Opposition. ECF No. 31. The Court finds this matter suitable for disposition 16 without oral argument and VACATES the September 26, 2024 hearing. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).1 17 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1), a party may amend its original pleading 18 once as a matter of course within 21 days of serving it. “In all other cases, a party may amend its 19 pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 15(a)(2). The Court considers five factors in deciding a motion for leave to amend: (1) bad faith 21 on the part of the movant; (2) undue delay; (3) prejudice to the opposing party; (4) futility of 22 amendment; and (5) whether the plaintiff has previously amended his complaint. In re W. States 23 Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig.,

(9th Cir. 2013), aff’d sub nom. Oneok, Inc. 24 v. Learjet, Inc.,

(2015). The rule is “to be applied with extreme liberality.” 25 Eminence Cap., LLC v. Aspeon, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations and 26 citation omitted). Generally, a court should determine whether to grant leave indulging “all 27 1 inferences in favor of granting the motion.” Griggs v. Pace Am. Grp., Inc.,

, 880 (9th 2 || Cir. 1999). 3 Having considered the relevant factors, as well as Defendant’s non-opposition, the Court 4 || finds good cause exists to permit the amendment and therefore GRANTS Rossi leave to file a 5 second amended complaint within 10 days of receiving admissible evidence from Technogym 6 || identifying the ERISA-governed defined contribution plan(s) sponsored by Technogym and the 7 plan administrator(s) for each such plan, adding such parties as defendants with respect only to 8 || Plaintiffs Fourth Cause of Action for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 Dated: September 3, 2024

THOMAS S. HIXSON 13 United States Magistrate Judge

(«4

15

16

17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28