Amy v. Curtis

N.D. California

Amy v. Curtis

DecidedMarch 6, 2020

Docket3:19-cv-02184

StatusUnknown

This text of Amy v. Curtis (Amy v. Curtis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amy v. Curtis, (N.D. Cal. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7 AMY, et al., Case No. 19-cv-02184-PJH 8 Plaintiffs,

9 v. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED 10 RANDALL STEVEN CURTIS, COMPLAINT AND VACATING HEARING 11 Defendant. Re: Dkt. No. 77 12

13 14 Before the court is plaintiffs’ motion to file a first amended complaint. Dkt. 77. 15 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 requires that a plaintiff obtain either consent of the 16 defendant or leave of court to amend its complaint once the defendant has answered, but 17 “leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Leave to 18 amend is granted with “extreme liberality.” Chodos v. W. Publ’g Co., 292 F.3d 992, 1003 19 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiffs have filed their motion well within the timeframe established by 20 the court’s Case Management and Pretrial Order. Dkt. 74. The court finds that 21 defendant would not be unduly prejudiced by an amended complaint and defendant’s 22 futility argument is misplaced. Accordingly, the court GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion and 23 VACATES the hearing scheduled for March 11, 2020. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: March 6, 2020 26 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton_______________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 27 United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7 AMY, et al., Case No. 19-cv-02184-PJH 8 Plaintiffs,

9 v. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED 10 RANDALL STEVEN CURTIS, COMPLAINT AND VACATING HEARING 11 Defendant. Re: Dkt. No. 77 12

13 14 Before the court is plaintiffs’ motion to file a first amended complaint. Dkt. 77. 15 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 requires that a plaintiff obtain either consent of the 16 defendant or leave of court to amend its complaint once the defendant has answered, but 17 “leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Leave to 18 amend is granted with “extreme liberality.” Chodos v. W. Publ’g Co., 292 F.3d 992, 1003 19 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiffs have filed their motion well within the timeframe established by 20 the court’s Case Management and Pretrial Order. Dkt. 74. The court finds that 21 defendant would not be unduly prejudiced by an amended complaint and defendant’s 22 futility argument is misplaced. Accordingly, the court GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion and 23 VACATES the hearing scheduled for March 11, 2020. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: March 6, 2020 26 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton_______________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 27 United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Amy v. Curtis, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amy-v-curtis-cand-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack