Chian v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: July 18, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00138
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * *

4 Samantha Chian, Case No. 2:25-cv-00138-CDS-BNW

5 Plaintiff, ORDER

6 v.

7 State Farm Fire & Casualty Company,

8 Defendant.

9 10 Before this Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. 11 ECF No. 18. Defendant opposed (ECF No. 21), and Plaintiff replied (ECF No. 22). This Court 12 grants Plaintiff’s Motion as Defendant fails to meet its burden of showing that Plaintiff acted in 13 bad faith or that the proposed amendment is futile. 14 I. LEGAL STANDARD 15 “[A] party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the 16 court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The party opposing amendment bears the burden of 17 showing why leave should be denied. DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th 18 Cir. 1987). “Five factors are taken into account to assess the propriety of a motion for leave to 19 amend: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, and 20 whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.” Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 21 1077 (9th Cir. 2004). Not all these factors carry equal weight and prejudice is the “touchstone.” 22 Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003). 23 Absent a showing of prejudice or a strong showing of any of the remaining factors, there 24 is a presumption that leave to amend should be granted. Id. “In exercising this discretion, a court 25 must be guided by the underlying purpose of Rule 15—to facilitate decision on the merits, rather 26 than on the pleadings or technicalities.” Roth v. Garcia Marquez, 942 F.2d 617, 628 (9th Cir. 27 1991) (quoting United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981)). Generally, the 1 analysis “should be performed with all inferences in favor of granting the motion.” Griggs v. 2 Pace Am. Grp., Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999). 3 A motion to amend is made in bad faith when there is “evidence in the record which 4 would indicate a wrongful motive.” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th 5 Cir. 1987). “In the context of a motion for leave to amend, ‘bad faith’ means acting with intent to 6 deceive, harass, mislead, delay, or disrupt.” Wizards of the Coast LLC v. Cryptozoic Entm't LLC, 7 309 F.R.D. 645, 651 (W.D. Wash. 2015). 8 “Denial of leave to amend on th[e] ground [of futility] is rare. Ordinarily, courts will 9 defer consideration of challenges to the merits of a proposed amended pleading until after leave 10 to amend is granted and the amended pleading is filed.” Netbula, LLC v. Distinct Corp., 212 11 F.R.D. 534, 539 (N.D. Cal. 2003). “Deferring ruling on the sufficiency of the allegations is 12 preferred in light of the more liberal standards applicable to motions to amend and the fact that 13 the parties’ arguments are better developed through a motion to dismiss or motion for summary 14 judgment.” Steward v. CMRE Fin’l Servs., Inc., 2015 WL 6123202, at *2 (D. Nev. Oct. 16, 15 2015). Thus, amendment is futile only if no set of facts can be proven under the amendment that 16 would constitute a valid and sufficient claim. Barahona v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 881 F.3d 1122, 17 1134 (9th Cir. 2018); Aiello v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 379 F. Supp. 3d 1123, 1129 (D. Nev. 2019). 18 II. ANALYSIS 19 Plaintiff seeks to amend her complaint to “assert a claim for Reformation of Contract and 20 to conform her complaint to the evidence.” Defendant does not argue there has been undue 21 delay, that Plaintiff has previously amended the complaint, or that it will suffer prejudice1.

22 1 It is not clear whether Defendant is asserting prejudice. Defendant mentions that 23 amendment will lead to unnecessary motion practice and require it to file a motion for summary judgment as to this additional cause of action. But Defendant makes these statements within the 24 section entitled “Futility” and does not otherwise develop the prejudice argument. To the extent is intends to argue prejudice, Defendant has not carried its burden. The non-moving party must show 25 the prejudice is substantial. Wizards of the Coast LLC v. Cryptozoic Ent. LLC, 309 F.R.D. 645, 652 (W.D. Wash. 2015) (citing Morongo Band of Mission Inidans v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 26 (9th Cir. 1990). Having to engage in motion practice and the need to file a summary judgment— without more—does not demonstrate substantial prejudice. 27 1 Instead, Defendant argues Plaintiff is acting in bad faith and that amendment would be futile. 2 Starting with bad faith, Defendant takes issue with the notion that the Second Amended 3 Complaint “conform[s] to the evidence.” In fact, Defendant argues Plaintiff is acting in bad faith 4 as she is incorrectly citing to documents to support her claim that she was to be added to the 5 umbrella policy. In this same vein, Defendant argues the documents actually show Plaintiff was 6 never intended to be added to the umbrella policy. 7 But in order to agree with Defendant, this Court would have to engage in factual findings. 8 At this stage, this Court is to accept the pleaded facts as true. As a result, while Defendant’s 9 argument may have merit in the Rule 11 context, it does not provide a basis for denying 10 Plaintiff’s motion. In short, this Court cannot derive an “intent to deceive, harass, mislead, delay, 11 or disrupt” with the record before it. And whether the allegations do indeed conform to the 12 evidence will be determined at a later date. 13 Next, for this Court to deny amendment based on futility, Defendant must establish that 14 Plaintiff “can prove no set of facts” relevant to the Reformation claim. Barahona, 881 F.3d at 15 1134. Again, this Court is to accept all pleaded facts as true in making this determination. 16 Defendant’s only basis to support its futility argument is that Plaintiff is mischaracterizing the 17 alleged facts. Whether the facts are what the Plaintiff represents they are or not—and, in turn, 18 whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief—is a determination for a later stage. For now, this Court 19 allows the amendments. 20 / / 21 / / 22 / / 23 / / 24 / / 25 III. CONCLUSION 26 27 ] IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint 2| (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff must file the Proposed Amended Complaint 4| onthe docket within 7 days from today. 5 6 DATED: July 18, 2025 7 g Ling ane bain B DA WEKSLER 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28