1 || Gustavo Ponce, Esq Nevada Bar No. 15084 2 || Mona Amini, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 3 6069 South Fort Apache Road, Suite 100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89148 4 || Telephone: (0) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 5 Email: gustavo@kazlg.com ‘ mona@kazlg.com Amanda J. Allen, Esq, (Pro Hac Vice) 7 || Florida Bar No. 0098228 THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM, PLLC 8 East Jackson Street, Suite 2340 Tampa, Florida. 33602 9 || Telephone: 500-1500 Facsimile: ¢ 13) 435-2369 10 || Amanda@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com 11 || Attorneys for Plaintiff, Regina Bailey 12 AS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT > 13 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 14
= REGINA BAILEY, individually and on Case No.: 2:21-cv-01740-RFB-BNW behalf of all others similarly situated, — 1 6 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 17 Plaintiff, TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL PARTY 18 vs. 19 | HCA HEALTHCARE, INC.; and VALLEY HEALTH, 20 21 Defendants. 22 23 24 25 COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, by and through her undersigned counsel, and 26 || pursuant to Local Rule 15-1 and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) and 27 || 16(b)(4), and hereby submits this Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint to add 28 an additional party. In support of this motion, the Plaintiff states as follows:
1 1) On September 21, 2021, Plaintiff filed this case asserting Defendant, HCA, 2 Healthcare, Inc., left approximately 40 prerecorded or artificial voice messages 3 to call a cellular telephone number without the recipient’s prior express consent 4 (Doc 1). 5 2) On November 16, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion to substitute party from HCA 6 Healthcare, Inc. to HCA, Inc. (Doc 16) and that Motion was Granted by the 7 Court. 8 3) Based on newly found information, Plaintiff believes Valley Health System, 9 LLC is an additional proper Defendant who also placed pre-recorded calls to her 10 cellular phone in an attempt to reach a third party. 4) The parties have conferred to this amendment and HCA, INC. has been unable < 12 to agree to the relief sought at this time. 5 2B LEGAL STANDARD 14 Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend = \||his pleading once as a matter of course within twenty-one (21) days after serving it, or 16 || within twenty-one (21) days after service of a responsive pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17 || 15(a)(1). Otherwise, such as in this instance, the party must seek the court's leave or 18 ||the opposing party's written consent to amend the pleading. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 | 15(a)(2). The Supreme Court of the United States has unequivocally held that, in 20 ||instances where leave of court is required for amendment, “Rule 15(a) declares that 21 leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires; this mandate is to be 22 || heeded.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (emphasis added) (internal 23 || quotations omitted). “Rule 15(a) prescribes a liberal standard and usually a court will 24 || look favorably on requests to amend.” U.S. v. Shaner, No. Civ. A. 85-1372, 1992 WL 25 || 154572, at *1 (E.D. Pa. June 16, 1992); see also Bechtel v. Robinson, 886 F.2d 644, 26 ||652 (3d Cir. 1989) (“We have noted that the courts have shown a strong liberality in 27 || allowing amendments under Rule 15(a).”); Dole v. Arco Chemical Co., 921 F.2d 484, 28 || 486-487 (3d. Cir. 1990) (“[W]e have consistently held that leave to amend should be
1 || granted freely.”). The Third Circuit has gone so far as to recognize the existence of a 2 ||““general presumption in favor of allowing a party to amend pleadings.” Boileau v. 3 || Bethlehem Steel Corp., 730 F.2d 929, 938 (3d Cir. 1984). This liberal approach 4\\“ensures that a particular claim will be decided on the merits rather than on 5 || technicalities.” Dole, 921 F.2d at 487. However, even with this liberal standard, courts 6 | will deny a motion to amend on grounds of dilatoriness or undue delay, prejudice, bad 7 | faith or futility. See Alvin v. Suzuki, 227 F.3d 107, 121 (3d Cir.2000); Hill v. City of 8 || Scranton, 411 F.3d 118, 134 (3d Cir.2005). If there is an absence of undue delay, bad 9 | faith, prejudice or futility, a motion for leave to amend a pleading should be liberally 10 | granted. Long v. Wilson, 393 F.3d 390, 400 (3d Cir. 2004). Courts have pointed out O 11 | that no unfair prejudice should be found simply because a party has to defend against < 12 better-pleaded claim.! Where a deficiency could be cured by an amendment, leave 2 13 | to amend should be granted.’ 14 ARGUMENT = 15 As stated above, in light of information Plaintiff recently learned, Plaintiff now 16 moves this Court to grant Plaintiff leave to amend Plaintiff’s initial Complaint to 17 || include an additional party. Motions to amend should be granted as justice so requires 18 | and Plaintiff is entitled to relief from Defendant based upon a Complaint conforming 19 ||to the evidence. As such, justice requires that Plaintiff be granted leave to amend the 20 || Complaint. 21 Motions to amend should only be denied if granting the motion would cause 22 || undue surprise or prejudice to the other party. At this stage of litigation and the nature 23 |lof the requested amendment, Defendant’s strategy in defending this matter will be 24 Popp Telcom, Inc. v. American Sharecom, Inc., 210 F.3d 928, 943 (8th Cir. 2000) 26 | (“The inclusion of a claim based on facts already known or available to both sides does 97 || not prejudice the non-moving party.”) 28 ? Lopez v. Smith, 203 F. 3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 200) (leave to amend should be granted even if not requested).
1 | minimally affected as Defendant and defense counsel have been aware of the additional 2 || party and information giving rise to Plaintiff's need to amend the operative Complaint. 3 || Additionally, Plaintiff's counsel has reached out to Defendant’s counsel several times 4 | regarding the necessary amendment to Plaintiff's Complaint, thus, Defendant should 5 || not be unduly surprised. 6 Furthermore, both of the present parties have an interest in seeing that Valley 7 | Health System, LLC is included in as a party in this action and held to account for any 8 | violations of the law that it may have engaged in. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, 9 | Plaintiff requests that the relief requested herein be granted. 10 LOCAL RULE LR IA 1-3 (f) O 1] Pursuant to Local Rule IA 1-3 (f), counsel for Plaintiff certifies that she < 12 | conferred with opposing counsel in good faith and Defendant has been unable to agree 5 13 | to the relief sought herein. 14 CONCLUSION = 15 Based on the above, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant 16 || Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Plaintiff's Complaint because justice does so 17 || require. It would not cause undue surprise or prejudice to the Defendant because it does 18 substantially change Defendant’s defenses. In no way does it cause prejudice to 19 || Defendant as Defendant is already preparing to defend this action in relatively the same 20 || manner as it would after an amendment to the Complaint. Therefore, in weighing these 21 factors, this Court should grant Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend □□□□□□□□□□□ 22 || Complaint to add Valley Health System, LLC as a defendant.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 || Gustavo Ponce, Esq Nevada Bar No. 15084 2 || Mona Amini, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 3 6069 South Fort Apache Road, Suite 100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89148 4 || Telephone: (0) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 5 Email: gustavo@kazlg.com ‘ mona@kazlg.com Amanda J. Allen, Esq, (Pro Hac Vice) 7 || Florida Bar No. 0098228 THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM, PLLC 8 East Jackson Street, Suite 2340 Tampa, Florida. 33602 9 || Telephone: 500-1500 Facsimile: ¢ 13) 435-2369 10 || Amanda@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com 11 || Attorneys for Plaintiff, Regina Bailey 12 AS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT > 13 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 14
= REGINA BAILEY, individually and on Case No.: 2:21-cv-01740-RFB-BNW behalf of all others similarly situated, — 1 6 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 17 Plaintiff, TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL PARTY 18 vs. 19 | HCA HEALTHCARE, INC.; and VALLEY HEALTH, 20 21 Defendants. 22 23 24 25 COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, by and through her undersigned counsel, and 26 || pursuant to Local Rule 15-1 and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) and 27 || 16(b)(4), and hereby submits this Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint to add 28 an additional party. In support of this motion, the Plaintiff states as follows:
1 1) On September 21, 2021, Plaintiff filed this case asserting Defendant, HCA, 2 Healthcare, Inc., left approximately 40 prerecorded or artificial voice messages 3 to call a cellular telephone number without the recipient’s prior express consent 4 (Doc 1). 5 2) On November 16, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion to substitute party from HCA 6 Healthcare, Inc. to HCA, Inc. (Doc 16) and that Motion was Granted by the 7 Court. 8 3) Based on newly found information, Plaintiff believes Valley Health System, 9 LLC is an additional proper Defendant who also placed pre-recorded calls to her 10 cellular phone in an attempt to reach a third party. 4) The parties have conferred to this amendment and HCA, INC. has been unable < 12 to agree to the relief sought at this time. 5 2B LEGAL STANDARD 14 Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend = \||his pleading once as a matter of course within twenty-one (21) days after serving it, or 16 || within twenty-one (21) days after service of a responsive pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17 || 15(a)(1). Otherwise, such as in this instance, the party must seek the court's leave or 18 ||the opposing party's written consent to amend the pleading. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 | 15(a)(2). The Supreme Court of the United States has unequivocally held that, in 20 ||instances where leave of court is required for amendment, “Rule 15(a) declares that 21 leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires; this mandate is to be 22 || heeded.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (emphasis added) (internal 23 || quotations omitted). “Rule 15(a) prescribes a liberal standard and usually a court will 24 || look favorably on requests to amend.” U.S. v. Shaner, No. Civ. A. 85-1372, 1992 WL 25 || 154572, at *1 (E.D. Pa. June 16, 1992); see also Bechtel v. Robinson, 886 F.2d 644, 26 ||652 (3d Cir. 1989) (“We have noted that the courts have shown a strong liberality in 27 || allowing amendments under Rule 15(a).”); Dole v. Arco Chemical Co., 921 F.2d 484, 28 || 486-487 (3d. Cir. 1990) (“[W]e have consistently held that leave to amend should be
1 || granted freely.”). The Third Circuit has gone so far as to recognize the existence of a 2 ||““general presumption in favor of allowing a party to amend pleadings.” Boileau v. 3 || Bethlehem Steel Corp., 730 F.2d 929, 938 (3d Cir. 1984). This liberal approach 4\\“ensures that a particular claim will be decided on the merits rather than on 5 || technicalities.” Dole, 921 F.2d at 487. However, even with this liberal standard, courts 6 | will deny a motion to amend on grounds of dilatoriness or undue delay, prejudice, bad 7 | faith or futility. See Alvin v. Suzuki, 227 F.3d 107, 121 (3d Cir.2000); Hill v. City of 8 || Scranton, 411 F.3d 118, 134 (3d Cir.2005). If there is an absence of undue delay, bad 9 | faith, prejudice or futility, a motion for leave to amend a pleading should be liberally 10 | granted. Long v. Wilson, 393 F.3d 390, 400 (3d Cir. 2004). Courts have pointed out O 11 | that no unfair prejudice should be found simply because a party has to defend against < 12 better-pleaded claim.! Where a deficiency could be cured by an amendment, leave 2 13 | to amend should be granted.’ 14 ARGUMENT = 15 As stated above, in light of information Plaintiff recently learned, Plaintiff now 16 moves this Court to grant Plaintiff leave to amend Plaintiff’s initial Complaint to 17 || include an additional party. Motions to amend should be granted as justice so requires 18 | and Plaintiff is entitled to relief from Defendant based upon a Complaint conforming 19 ||to the evidence. As such, justice requires that Plaintiff be granted leave to amend the 20 || Complaint. 21 Motions to amend should only be denied if granting the motion would cause 22 || undue surprise or prejudice to the other party. At this stage of litigation and the nature 23 |lof the requested amendment, Defendant’s strategy in defending this matter will be 24 Popp Telcom, Inc. v. American Sharecom, Inc., 210 F.3d 928, 943 (8th Cir. 2000) 26 | (“The inclusion of a claim based on facts already known or available to both sides does 97 || not prejudice the non-moving party.”) 28 ? Lopez v. Smith, 203 F. 3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 200) (leave to amend should be granted even if not requested).
1 | minimally affected as Defendant and defense counsel have been aware of the additional 2 || party and information giving rise to Plaintiff's need to amend the operative Complaint. 3 || Additionally, Plaintiff's counsel has reached out to Defendant’s counsel several times 4 | regarding the necessary amendment to Plaintiff's Complaint, thus, Defendant should 5 || not be unduly surprised. 6 Furthermore, both of the present parties have an interest in seeing that Valley 7 | Health System, LLC is included in as a party in this action and held to account for any 8 | violations of the law that it may have engaged in. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, 9 | Plaintiff requests that the relief requested herein be granted. 10 LOCAL RULE LR IA 1-3 (f) O 1] Pursuant to Local Rule IA 1-3 (f), counsel for Plaintiff certifies that she < 12 | conferred with opposing counsel in good faith and Defendant has been unable to agree 5 13 | to the relief sought herein. 14 CONCLUSION = 15 Based on the above, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant 16 || Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Plaintiff's Complaint because justice does so 17 || require. It would not cause undue surprise or prejudice to the Defendant because it does 18 substantially change Defendant’s defenses. In no way does it cause prejudice to 19 || Defendant as Defendant is already preparing to defend this action in relatively the same 20 || manner as it would after an amendment to the Complaint. Therefore, in weighing these 21 factors, this Court should grant Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend □□□□□□□□□□□ 22 || Complaint to add Valley Health System, LLC as a defendant. 23 24 || DATED this 17th day of March 2022. Respectfully submitted, 26
28 Nevada Bar No. 15084 Mona Amini, Esq.
1 KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC > 6069 South Fort Apache Road, Suite 100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89148 3 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 4 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: gustavo@kazlg.com 5 mona@kazlg.com 6 /s/Amanda J. Allen. 7 Amanda J. Allen, Esq. (Pro Hac Vice) g Florida Bar No. 0098228 THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM, 9 PLLC 10 401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2340 Tampa, Florida 33602 Telephone: (813) 500-1500 Facsimile: (813) 435-2369 a: Amanda@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com > 13 O me 14 U ORDER 5 IT IS ORDERED that ECF No. 30 is GRANTED as unopposed. See ECF No. 31 16 ("HCA does not oppose the Motion to Amend given the liberal standard governing amendment."). 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff must file her amended complaint by 18 8/19/2022. 19 IT ISSO ORDERED DATED: 5:51 pm, July 18, 2022 20 Lana wey 21 BRENDA WEKSLER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 3 I HEREBY CERTIFY that on March 17, 2022, a true copy of the foregoing 4 || was filed with the Clerk of the Court and served on the parties of record using the 5 || CM/ECF system. 6 Respectfully submitted, 7 g /s/_ Gustavo Ponce, Gustavo Ponce, Esq. 9 Nevada Bar No. 15084 Mona Amini, Esq. 10 KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 11 6069 South Fort Apache Road, Suite 100 VY Las Vegas, Nevada 89148 < 12 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 5 B Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 O Email: gustavo@kazlg.com re 14 mona@kazlg.com UO 15 /s/Amanda J. Allen. Amanda J. Allen, Esq. (Pro Hac Vice) Florida Bar No. 0098228 THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM, 18 PLLC 19 401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2340 Tampa, Florida 33602 20 Telephone: (813) 500-1500 1 Facsimile: (813) 435-2369 Amanda@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com 22 23 24 25 26 27 28