Solt v. CSA America Testing & Certification LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE DENA SOLT, Case No. C24-112-RSM Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 10 UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED 11 v. COMPLAINT CSA AMERICA TESTING & CERTIFICATION LLC d/b/a CSA GROUP, a foreign limited liability company, CSA AMERICA STANDARDS, INC. d/b/a CSA AMERICA STANDARDS, a foreign nonprofit corporation, CSA AMERICA INC., a foreign corporation, and CSA CANADA INC., d/b/a CSA GROUP, a foreign corporation, Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. Dkt. #27. Defendants consent to this filing. Id. at 1.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), a “court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Courts apply this policy with “extreme liberality.”

Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003). Five factors are commonly used to assess the propriety of granting leave to amend: (1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of amendment, and (5) whether plaintiff has previously amended the complaint. Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 373 (9th Cir. 1990); Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). In conducting this five-factor analysis, the court must grant all inferences in favor of allowing amendment. Griggs v. Pace Am. Group, Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999). In addition, the court must be mindful of the fact that, for each of these factors, the party opposing amendment has the burden of showing that amendment is not warranted. DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Richardson v. United States, 841 F.2d 993, 999 (9th Cir. 1988).

Plaintiff has not previously filed an amended complaint, and Defendants consent to Plaintiff filing an amended complaint. Plaintiff seeks to amend her Complaint to correct the entity names of the Defendants and to amend sections pertaining to the Court’s jurisdiction, venue, and specific claims. Dkt. #27 at 1. The Court finds good reason to grant Plaintiff’s Motion.

Having reviewed the Motion and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint, Dkt. #27, is GRANTED.

Plaintiff shall file the Amended Complaint no later than May 10, 2024.

DATED this 9th day of May, 2024.

18 A RICARDO S. MARTINEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE