Bradley v. Swedish Health Services

W.D. Washington

Bradley v. Swedish Health Services

District Court, W.D. Washington·Decided February 21, 2023·No. 2:22-cv-00581·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT SEATTLE JASON LEE BRADLEY, Plaintiff, v. C22-0581 TSZ SWEDISH HEALTH SERVICES d/b/a MINUTE ORDER SWEDISH MEDICAL CENTER, et al., Defendants.

The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge: (1) Defendant’s motion for leave to amend, docket no. 18, is GRANTED, and 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 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 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: “(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. 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 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 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- Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 1988) (“[A] proposed amendment is futile only

1 Additionally, the deadline for amending pleadings in this action is April 10, 2023. See Minute Order (docket no. 10). 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 or demonstrate impacts that rise to the level of prejudice contemplated by the rules. (2) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order to all counsel of record. Dated this 21st day of February, 2023. Ravi Subramanian Clerk s/Laurie Cuaresma Deputy Clerk

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT SEATTLE JASON LEE BRADLEY, Plaintiff, v. C22-0581 TSZ SWEDISH HEALTH SERVICES d/b/a MINUTE ORDER SWEDISH MEDICAL CENTER, et al., Defendants.

The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge: (1) Defendant’s motion for leave to amend, docket no. 18, is GRANTED, and 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 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 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: “(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. 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 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 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- Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 1988) (“[A] proposed amendment is futile only

1 Additionally, the deadline for amending pleadings in this action is April 10, 2023. See Minute Order (docket no. 10). 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 or demonstrate impacts that rise to the level of prejudice contemplated by the rules. (2) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order to all counsel of record. Dated this 21st day of February, 2023. Ravi Subramanian Clerk s/Laurie Cuaresma Deputy Clerk

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

Pincite

Bradley v. Swedish Health Services (Bradley v. Swedish Health Services) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related