1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF GUAM 7

8 GILLIAN MARY HARDMAN, Civil Case No. 10-00010 9 Plaintiff, 10 vs. ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO DISMISS 11 GOVERNMENT OF GUAM (GUAM POLICE DEPARTMENT), BENNY T. 12 BABAUTA, CARLO E. REYES, KENNETH J.C. BALAJADIA, JOSEPH 13 B. TENORIO, AND OTHER CO- CONSPIRATOR DOES 1 THROUGH 9, 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 Before the court are three motions to dismiss: (1) one by Defendant CARLO E. REYES 18 (see Docket No. 10); (2) one by Defendant GOVERNMENT OF GUAM (GUAM POLICE 19 DEPARTMENT) (see Docket No. 11); and (3) one by Defendants BENNY T. BABAUTA and 20 KENNETH J.C. BALAJADIA (see Docket No. 12) (collectively, “the Motions”). 21 The Motions are effectively unopposed. See generally Docket No. 14. Therefore, the 22 Motions are GRANTED.1 23 Plaintiff seeks leave to amend her complaint. See Docket No. 14 at 3:17-5:4. Courts are 24 free to grant a party leave to amend whenever “justice so requires.” FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2). In 25 deciding whether justice requires granting leave to amend, factors to be considered include “the 26 27 1 The court notes that Plaintiff “asks the court to defer deciding the instant motions to dismiss and to allow 28 Plaintiff to amend the Complaint.” Docket No. 14 at 4:13-14. However, Plaintiff offers no reason to “defer deciding 1 || presence or absence of undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure 2 || deficiencies by previous amendments, undue prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of the 3 || proposed amendment.” Moore v. Kayport Package Express, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 4 | 1989) (citing Foman v. Davis,

(1962)) (“the Foman factors”). Requests for 5 || leave should be granted with “extreme liberality.” Moss v. United States Secret Service, 572 6 || F.3d 962, 972 (9th Cir. 2009). “Dismissal without leave to amend is improper unless it is clear, 7 || upon de novo review, that the complaint could not be saved by any amendment.” /d. 8 Defendants have not elected to file replies in support of their Motions, and so have not 9 || offered any argument that any of the Foman factors have been established. Moreover, the court 10 || sees no evidence of such. Therefore, leave to amend is GRANTED. 11 Plaintiff shall file her First Amended Complaint by 3 p.m. on August 19, 2010. 12 SO ORDERED. 13

Sn /s/ Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood 15 wi Chief Judge 16 le ’ Dated: Aug 05, 2010 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5.