Hipschman v. County of San Diego

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CAROLINA HIPSCHMAN, an Case No.: 22-cv-00903-AJB-BLM individual; et al., Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ v. UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, a public COMPLAINT entity; et al., (Doc. No. 65) Defendants.

21 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) to include as additional defendants, Tin Le and Maria Araiza, to their first cause of action for unwarranted seizure of their child, after discovery revealed their involvement therein. (Doc. No. 65-1 at 5.) Defendants filed a statement of non-opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion. (Doc. No. 70.) The Court finds the matter suitable for determination on the papers and without oral argument. The motion hearing previously scheduled is hereby VACATED.

1 There being no opposition to Plaintiffs’ filing of a SAC as provided in Doc. No. 65-3 ||and no showing that the amendment would be futile or prejudice Defendants, the Court 3 GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a SAC. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (courts ||should freely grant leave to amend “when justice so requires”); Eminence Capital, LLC v. || Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Absent prejudice, or a strong □□□□□□□□ || of the remaining factors, there exists a ‘presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting || leave to amend.’”

8 The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to vacate the October 17, 2024 hearing and file || Doc. No. 65-3 as the Second Amended Complaint. Defendants’ Answer to the SAC must 10 filed no later than July 1, 2024.

1] IT IS SO ORDERED.

12 Dated: June 21, 2024 © ¢ 13 Hon. Anthony J. attaglia 14 United States District Judge