B.M. v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 SAN JOSE DIVISION 5 6 J.M., as the Representative of the Estate of Case No. 20-cv-00656-BLF Decedent B.M., 7 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S Plaintiff, UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE 8 TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT; AND v. VACATING NOVEMBER 25, 2025 9 HEARING WYNDHAM HOTELS & RESORTS, INC., 10 [Re: ECF 160] Defendant. 11 12 The Court finds Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for leave to amend the complaint to be 13 suitable for decision without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). The November 25, 2024 14 hearing is VACATED. The motion for leave to amend is GRANTED as discussed below. 15 In January 2020, sex trafficking victim B.M. filed this action against several hotels under 16 the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (“TVPRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1589 et 17 seq., on the theory that the defendant hotels knowingly benefitted from sex trafficking ventures 18 operated in and out of their rooms. See Compl., ECF 1. Following motion practice, Plaintiff filed 19 the operative first amended complaint in August 2020. See FAC, ECF 82. The Court thereafter 20 stayed the case pending criminal prosecution of the alleged traffickers. See Order Staying Case, 21 ECF 99. The deadline for amendment to pleadings was set as sixty days after the lifting of the 22 stay. See Case Management Order, ECF 106. While the stay was in effect, B.M. died, and her 23 mother, J.M., was substituted as Plaintiff. See Order Granting Mot. for Subst. ECF 121. The stay 24 was lifted by the Court on October 13, 2023. See Order Lifting Stay, ECF 131. 25 Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint on November 13, 2023, within the 26 sixty-day period set in the scheduling order. See Pl.’s Mot. for Leave, ECF 135. The Court 27 terminated that motion without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s indication that she had reached 1 additional defendants and claims. See Order Term. Pl.’s Motion, ECF 146. Plaintiff filed the 2 || present motion on July 2, 2024, attaching a proposed second amended complaint that would add 3 new defendants and new claims for negligence and wrongful death. See Pl.’s Mot. for Leave, ECF 4 160. Under those circumstances, the Court finds Plaintiffs current motion to be timely and in 5 conformity with the scheduling order. The Court therefore evaluates the motion under the liberal 6 standard applicable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, rather than the good cause standard 7 applicable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, which applies when a party seeks leave to 8 || amend after expiration of the deadline to do so. 9 Rule 15 provides that “[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so 10 || requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “This policy is to be applied with extreme liberality.” 11 Eminence Cap., LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (quotation marks and 12 || citation omitted). Leave to amend should be granted absent a finding that leave is not warranted 5 13 under the ““Foman factors”: (1) undue delay, (2) bad faith or dilatory motive, (3) repeated failure 14 || tocure deficiencies by amendment, (4) undue prejudice to the opposing party, and (5) futility of 15 amendment. See id. at 1052 (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). a 16 The Court does not find any of the Foman factors to be present here. The only defendant 3 17 remaining in the case at this time, Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc., has filed a statement of non- 18 || opposition to the proposed amendment. See Def.’s Statement of Non-Opp., ECF 161. 19 || Accordingly, under Rule 15’s liberal standard, Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend 1s 20 || GRANTED. 21 ORDER 22 (1) Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend is GRANTED. Plaintiff SHALL file her 23 second amended complaint by July 24, 2024. 24 (2) The motion hearing previously set for November 25, 2024 is VACATED. 25 (3) This order terminates ECF 161. 26 27 || Dated: July 17, 2024 Lis Wh (Oh 1 | ETH LABSON FREEMAN 28 United States District Judge