Stevens v. Pierce County

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA RANDALL STEVENS, CASE NO. C22-5862 BHS Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. PIERCE COUNTY, et al., 11 Defendants.

13 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Randall Stevens’ unopposed Motion to Amend. Dkt. 14.

15 Leave to amend a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) “shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 17 876, 892 (9th Cir. 2010). “This policy is ‘to be applied with extreme liberality.’”

18 Eminence Cap., LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001)). In determining whether to grant leave under Rule 15, courts consider five factors: “bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.” United States v. Corinthian Colls., 655 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir. 2011). Among these factors, prejudice to the opposing party carries the greatest weight. Eminence Cap., 316 F.3d at 1052.

3 Stevens’ motion is unopposed, Dkt. 15, and the Court concludes that granting leave to amend is warranted. His Motion to Amend, Dkt. 14, is therefore GRANTED.

5 IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 Dated this 3rd day of April, 2023.

A BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge