Bradley v. Swedish Health Services

W.D. Washington

Bradley v. Swedish Health Services

DecidedFebruary 21, 2023

Docket2:22-cv-00581

StatusUnknown

This text of Bradley v. Swedish Health Services (Bradley v. Swedish Health Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bradley v. Swedish Health Services, (W.D. Wash. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 5 JASON LEE BRADLEY, 6 Plaintiff, 7 v. C22-0581 TSZ 8 SWEDISH HEALTH SERVICES d/b/a MINUTE ORDER 9 SWEDISH MEDICAL CENTER, et al., 10 Defendants.

11 The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge: 12 (1) Defendant’s motion for leave to amend, docket no. 18, is GRANTED, and 13 Defendant shall file its Amended Answer, Ex. A to Mot. (docket no. 18-1), within five (5) days of this Minute Order. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) directs that leave to 14 amend shall be freely given “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). In the Ninth Circuit “this policy is to be applied with extreme liberality.” Owens v. Kaiser 15 Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001). The Ninth Circuit has identified four factors that “govern the propriety of a motion” made pursuant to this rule: 16 “(1) undue delay, (2) bad faith, (3) futility of amendment, and (4) prejudice to the opponent.” Loehr v. Ventura Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist., 743 F.2d 1310, 1319 (9th Cir. 17 1984). The Court has considered these four factors and concludes that they weigh in favor of Defendant. Defendant has not engaged in bad faith in bringing the present 18 motion for leave to amend its Answer to include the affirmative defense of after-acquired evidence, and there is no undue delay because Defendant only recently learned that 19 Plaintiff misrepresented his work experience when he applied to work for Defendant.1 The Court also concludes that amendment would not be futile. See Miller v. Rykoff- 20 Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 1988) (“[A] proposed amendment is futile only

21 1 Additionally, the deadline for amending pleadings in this action is April 10, 2023. See Minute 22 Order (docket no. 10). 1 if no set of facts can be proved under the amendment to the pleadings that would constitute a valid and sufficient claim or defense.”). Further, Plaintiff has failed to allege 2 or demonstrate impacts that rise to the level of prejudice contemplated by the rules. 3 (2) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order to all counsel of record. 4 Dated this 21st day of February, 2023. 5 Ravi Subramanian 6 Clerk 7 s/Laurie Cuaresma Deputy Clerk 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

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

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 5 JASON LEE BRADLEY, 6 Plaintiff, 7 v. C22-0581 TSZ 8 SWEDISH HEALTH SERVICES d/b/a MINUTE ORDER 9 SWEDISH MEDICAL CENTER, et al., 10 Defendants.

11 The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge: 12 (1) Defendant’s motion for leave to amend, docket no. 18, is GRANTED, and 13 Defendant shall file its Amended Answer, Ex. A to Mot. (docket no. 18-1), within five (5) days of this Minute Order. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) directs that leave to 14 amend shall be freely given “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). In the Ninth Circuit “this policy is to be applied with extreme liberality.” Owens v. Kaiser 15 Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001). The Ninth Circuit has identified four factors that “govern the propriety of a motion” made pursuant to this rule: 16 “(1) undue delay, (2) bad faith, (3) futility of amendment, and (4) prejudice to the opponent.” Loehr v. Ventura Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist., 743 F.2d 1310, 1319 (9th Cir. 17 1984). The Court has considered these four factors and concludes that they weigh in favor of Defendant. Defendant has not engaged in bad faith in bringing the present 18 motion for leave to amend its Answer to include the affirmative defense of after-acquired evidence, and there is no undue delay because Defendant only recently learned that 19 Plaintiff misrepresented his work experience when he applied to work for Defendant.1 The Court also concludes that amendment would not be futile. See Miller v. Rykoff- 20 Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 1988) (“[A] proposed amendment is futile only

21 1 Additionally, the deadline for amending pleadings in this action is April 10, 2023. See Minute 22 Order (docket no. 10). 1 if no set of facts can be proved under the amendment to the pleadings that would constitute a valid and sufficient claim or defense.”). Further, Plaintiff has failed to allege 2 or demonstrate impacts that rise to the level of prejudice contemplated by the rules. 3 (2) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order to all counsel of record. 4 Dated this 21st day of February, 2023. 5 Ravi Subramanian 6 Clerk 7 s/Laurie Cuaresma Deputy Clerk 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Bradley v. Swedish Health Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bradley-v-swedish-health-services-wawd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack