Borgens v. Hematology Oncology Associates of New Jersey LLC

D. Arizona

Borgens v. Hematology Oncology Associates of New Jersey LLC

DecidedNovember 23, 2021

Docket3:21-cv-08153

StatusUnknown

This text of Borgens v. Hematology Oncology Associates of New Jersey LLC (Borgens v. Hematology Oncology Associates of New Jersey LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Borgens v. Hematology Oncology Associates of New Jersey LLC, (D. Ariz. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Amber Borgens, No. CV-21-08153-PCT-JAT

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Hematology Oncology Associates of New Jersey LLC, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Amber Borgens’ Unopposed Motion for 16 Leave to File First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 17). Plaintiff seeks to add Leena 17 Hamdan—the spouse of Defendant Dr. Hamdy A. Mohtaseb—for community property 18 purposes. (Id. at 1). The Court will grant the motion. 19 A court considering a motion for leave to file an amended complaint “should 20 freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). This policy is “to be 21 applied with extreme liberality.” Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 22 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990). Inferences should be drawn “in favor of granting the motion” 23 to amend. Griggs v. Pace American Group, Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999). 24 Here, Plaintiff has explained that her delay in adding the additional party was 25 because she discovered the identity of Dr. Mohtaseb’s spouse only after discovery began. 26 (Doc. 17 at 2). Because of this, Plaintiff’s proposed amendment is in good faith. It also 27 appears that Plaintiff did not delay in seeking to amend. Finally, given that her motion is 28 unopposed, it appears that granting leave to amend will not prejudice Defendants. 1 || Finding her motion unopposed and given the liberal standards permitting amendment, the 2 || Court will grant her motion. 3 Accordingly, 4 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Leave to File First 5 |; Amended Complaint (Doc. 17) is granted. Plaintiff shall file a clean copy of their First 6 || Amended Complaint within 14 days of this Order. If Plaintiff fails to file within this deadline, the original complaint will remain the operative pleading and the leave to 8 || amend granted herein will be deemed to have expired. 9 Dated this 23rd day of November, 2021. 10 11 a 3 12 James A. Teilborg 13 Senior United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-

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

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Amber Borgens, No. CV-21-08153-PCT-JAT

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Hematology Oncology Associates of New Jersey LLC, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Amber Borgens’ Unopposed Motion for 16 Leave to File First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 17). Plaintiff seeks to add Leena 17 Hamdan—the spouse of Defendant Dr. Hamdy A. Mohtaseb—for community property 18 purposes. (Id. at 1). The Court will grant the motion. 19 A court considering a motion for leave to file an amended complaint “should 20 freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). This policy is “to be 21 applied with extreme liberality.” Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 22 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990). Inferences should be drawn “in favor of granting the motion” 23 to amend. Griggs v. Pace American Group, Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999). 24 Here, Plaintiff has explained that her delay in adding the additional party was 25 because she discovered the identity of Dr. Mohtaseb’s spouse only after discovery began. 26 (Doc. 17 at 2). Because of this, Plaintiff’s proposed amendment is in good faith. It also 27 appears that Plaintiff did not delay in seeking to amend. Finally, given that her motion is 28 unopposed, it appears that granting leave to amend will not prejudice Defendants. 1 || Finding her motion unopposed and given the liberal standards permitting amendment, the 2 || Court will grant her motion. 3 Accordingly, 4 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Leave to File First 5 |; Amended Complaint (Doc. 17) is granted. Plaintiff shall file a clean copy of their First 6 || Amended Complaint within 14 days of this Order. If Plaintiff fails to file within this deadline, the original complaint will remain the operative pleading and the leave to 8 || amend granted herein will be deemed to have expired. 9 Dated this 23rd day of November, 2021. 10 11 a 3 12 James A. Teilborg 13 Senior United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Borgens v. Hematology Oncology Associates of New Jersey LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/borgens-v-hematology-oncology-associates-of-new-jersey-llc-azd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack