1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Juan Francisco Eguizabal Valiente, et al., 2:24-cv-02415-JCM-MDC 4 Plaintiff(s),

vs. 5 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND Loren K. Miller, et al., COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 22) 6 Defendant(s). 7 Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint (“Motion”). ECF No. 22. The Court 8 GRANTS the Motion. 9 I. BACKGROUND 10 This is an immigration case: plaintiffs seek to compel delayed government action on the 11 processing of plaintiffs’ I-765 Applications for Employment Authorization. ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs allege 12 that they have the substantive right to amend their pleading once as a matter of course within twenty-one 13 days of the filing a motion to dismiss. See ECF No. 22 at 3, citing to F.R.C.P. 15(a). Plaintiffs allege 14 that they are timely regarding amendment, but they seek leave to amend in an abundance of caution to 15 comply with the local rules. Id. Defendants argue that plaintiffs have not shown good cause, that 16 amendment is futile, and that plaintiffs did not comply with the local rule because they omitted a copy of 17 their proposed amendment to their Motion. ECF No. 23. Plaintiffs attached a copy of the proposed 18 amended complaint to their reply. ECF No. 24-1. It is early in the case and there is no deadline to amend 19 pleadings. 20 II. DISCUSSION 21 22 A. Legal Standard 23 A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course if the pleading is one to which a 24 responsive pleading is required, twenty-one days after service of a responsive pleading or twenty-one 25 1 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier. FRCP 15 (a)(1)(B). 2 Otherwise, "a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's 3 leave." FRCP 15(a)(2). "Five factors are taken into account to assess the propriety of a motion for leave 4 to amend: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, and whether 5 the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint." Johnson v. Buckley,

, 1077 (9th Cir. 6 2004). 7 "Denial of leave to amend on this ground [futility] is rare. Ordinarily, courts will defer 8 consideration of challenges to the merits of a proposed amended pleading until after leave to amend is 9 granted and the amended pleading is filed." Netbula, LLC v. Distinct Corp.,

(N.D.

). "Deferring ruling on the sufficiency of the allegations is preferred in light of the more liberal 11 standards applicable to motions to amend and the fact that the parties' arguments are better developed 12 through a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment." Steward v. CMRE Fin'l Servs., Inc., 13

,

, at 2 (D. Nev. Oct. 16, 2015); citing to In re 14 Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litig.,

(N.D. Cal. 15 2008). B. Analysis 16 Plaintiff meets the standard for leave to amend. Plaintiffs attached a copy of the proposed 17 amended complaint to their motion. See ECF No. 22-1. There is no bad faith. The plaintiff diligently 18 and timely sought leave to amend after reviewing the motion to dismiss. There is no deadline to amend 19 in this case as it is early in the case. The defendants will not be prejudiced by the amendment because 20 the allegations are closely related to the claims in the operative complaint. The Court also notes that 21 plaintiffs granted the Government three extensions to respond to the complaint (ECF Nos. 11, 16, 18) 22 and the Government’s refusal to reciprocate plaintiffs’ request for an extension (see ECF No. 20 at para. 23 14) is unreasonable. The Court expects the parties to cooperate and reciprocate professional courtesies. 24 Ruling on futility at this stage is rare, and this case is not one of the rare cases that requires a ruling on 25 1 futility. The defendants' futility arguments would be better addressed through a motion to dismiss or for 2 summary judgment, given that the proposed allegations are reasonably related to plaintiff's original 3 claims. While plaintiffs attached their proposed amendment to the reply instead of the Motion, the 4 plaintiffs have met all the other requirements for leave to amend. Courts prefer to decide motions on the 5 merits rather than on technicalities. Plaintiff has shown good cause to amend the complaint. 6 IT IS ORDERED that: 7 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint (ECF No. 22) is GRANTED. 8 2. Plaintiff MUST file the amended complaint on the docket within one week of this order. 9 10 DATED: August 15, 2025. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 _________________________ 13 Hon. Maximiliano D. Couvillier III

United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25