Anderson v. Meneses

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 CALVIN MALONE, CASE NO. 3:19-cv-05574-RJB-JRC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 12 v. AMEND COMPLAINT 13 STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint and on 17 referral from the District Court. See Dkts. 9, 52. 18 Plaintiffs can no longer amend their complaint as of right, so that they must have 19 defendants’ written consent or the court’s leave to amend their complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 15(a)(2). “The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Id. Factors that may be 21 considered in deciding whether to grant leave to amend include whether there is undue delay, 22 bad faith, dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies, futility of amendment, or undue 23 prejudice to the opposing party. See Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 24 1 1051–52 (9th Cir. 2003). Whether there is prejudice to the opposing party is the factor that 2 should be given the greatest weight. See id. 3 Here, defendants do not oppose granting leave to amend, so that the Court concludes that 4 there is no undue prejudice to the opposing party. Nor does the record reveal anything untoward

5 about the amendment: in fact, the District Court has dismissed certain claims without prejudice 6 and allowed plaintiffs to file a renewed motion to amend. See Dkt. 49, at 14. 7 Finally, although the Court declines to comment on the merits of the amended complaint, 8 the amendments do not appear to be futile. The amendments replace plaintiff Calvin Malone 9 with six other plaintiffs; name a different defendant; delete claims other than those brought under 10 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and seek only injunctive and declaratory relief. This appears to the Court to 11 be consistent with the Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, which dismissed plaintiff 12 Malone’s claims for injunctive relief; claims for damages and retrospective relief for violations 13 of constitutional rights, the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), and for unjust enrichment; 14 claims for constitutional and FLSA violations and unjust enrichment brought against individual

15 defendants in their individual capacities; and claims based on events before June 20, 2016. 16 Therefore, the motion for leave to amend (Dkt. 52) is granted. Plaintiffs are directed to 17 electronically file a clean copy of the proposed amended complaint (see Dkt. 52-1) as the 18 operative Amended Complaint in this matter. 19 Dated this 25th day of November, 2020. 20 A 21 J.Richard Creatura 22 United States Magistrate Judge 23 24