Shankar v. Microsoft Corporation

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE RAGHAVENDRAN SHANKAR, CASE NO. C24-0308-JCC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 13 Defendant.

15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend his complaint (Dkt. No. 17). Having duly considered the relevant record, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion for the reasons described below.

18 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), “[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” The Ninth Circuit has stated that “this policy is to be applied with extreme liberality.” Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001) (citations and quotations omitted). “Courts may decline to grant leave to amend only if there is strong evidence of ‘undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of amendment, etc.’” Sonoma Cnty. Ass’n of Retired Emps. v. Sonoma Cnty., 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). Given the early stage of this case and the fact that Defendant has not yet appeared, the Court does not find there is any undue prejudice or undue delay. See Porter v. Yuba City Police Dep’t, 2021 WL 3051990, slip op. at 1 (E.D. Cal. 2021).

4 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint (Dkt. No. 17) is GRANTED.

6 DATED this 27th day of June 2024.

A John C. Coughenour 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE