Buckhorn v. Hettinger

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JACK BUCKHORN, et al., Case No. 15-cv-04352-TSH 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 9 Vv. LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT 10 MARLON EUGENE HETTINGER, Re: Dkt. No. 179 11 Defendant. 12

13 As the Ninth Circuit determined Plaintiffs did not properly allege a state law breach of

v 14 || contract claim in their Second Amended Complaint, they now seek leave to amend pursuant to O 15 || Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). ECF No. 179. Defendants did not file an opposition. The Q 16 || Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument and VACATES the August

17 13, 2020 hearing. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).

18 Having considered the relevant factors in deciding a motion for leave to amend, see In re 19 W. States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 716, 738 (9th Cir. 2013), and that leave 20 || to amend should be determined with “all inferences in favor of granting the motion,” Griggs v. 21 Pace Am. Grp., Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999), the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs leave to file 22 || athird amended complaint by July 24, 2020. No chambers copy is required. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 Dated: July 20, 2020 26 7 LU \ - THOMAS S. HIXSON 27 United States Magistrate Judge 28