1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Lisa Leonard, No. 2:23-cv-01189-KJM-DMC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. County of Lassen et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 In this employment action, plaintiff Lisa Leonard moves to file a first amended complaint 18 | against defendants, County of Lassen and Does 1—20 inclusive. Leonard contends the proposed 19 | amended complaint will assert additional claims for alleged violations of the Americans with 20 | Disabilities Act arising from her employment with defendants. Mot. at 7, ECF No. 28; 42 U.S.C. 21 | §§ 12101, 12112(b)(5)(A). The motion is unopposed. See Statement Non-Opp’n, ECF No. 31. 22 | The court, in its discretion, submitted the matter without oral argument. See Min. Order, ECF 23 | No. 32. 24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides the court should “freely give leave [to 25 | amend] when justice so requires” and the Ninth Circuit has “stressed Rule 15’s policy of favoring 26 | amendments.” Ascon Properties, Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co.,

(9th Cir. 1989). 27 | “Courts may decline to grant leave to amend only if there is strong evidence of ‘undue delay, bad 28 | faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by

1 | amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of 2 | the amendment, [or] futility of amendment, etc.’” Sonoma Cnty. Ass’n of Retired Emps. v. 3 | Sonoma Cnty.,

(9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Foman v. Davis,

, 182 4 | (1962)). 5 Here, the court finds leave to amend is warranted. The court has not yet held a pretrial 6 | conference and there is no trial date pending. At this early stage of the case, the court finds no 7 | evidence of undue delay or prejudice to the defendants. Moreover, plaintiff's proposed amended 8 | complaint relates to the same conduct as her original complaint asserting claims of sexual 9 | harassment in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-3(a), 12203. Compare Compl., ECF No. 1, with 10 | Mot. Ex. A, Proposed First Am. Compl., ECF No. 28-1. The court also finds no indication of bad 11 | faith or dilatory motive. Finally, plaintiff has not repeatedly failed to cure deficiencies nor is 12 | there any indication amendment would be futile. 13 For the reasons stated above, the court grants plaintiff's motion. The first amended 14 | complaint must be filed within fourteen days of this order. 15 This order resolves ECF No. 28. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 DATED: January 30, 2025. oUt 18 a STATES DISTRICT JUDGE