Christon v. Ocean Beach School District

W.D. Washington

Christon v. Ocean Beach School District

DecidedMay 6, 2020

Docket3:19-cv-06214

StatusUnknown

This text of Christon v. Ocean Beach School District (Christon v. Ocean Beach School District) 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

Christon v. Ocean Beach School District, (W.D. Wash. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 ERIN CHRISTON, an individual, CASE NO. 19-cv-6214-RJB-JRC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 12 v. MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT 13 OCEAN BEACH SCHOOL DISTRICT, 14 Defendant. 15 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend the 16 Complaint for Damages. Dkt. 17. The Court has considered the pleadings filed regarding the 17 motion and the remaining file. For the reasons set forth below, the motion should be granted. 18 The motion provides that “Plaintiff Erin Christon respectfully seeks leave to file her 19 Second Amended Complaint for Damages to include a claim for post-termination retaliation 20 under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the Washington Law Against 21 Discrimination.” Dkt. 17, at 1. Plaintiff filed a copy of the proposed Second Amended 22 Complaint. Dkt. 18. 23 24 1 Defendant filed a response brief. Dkt. 19. The response provides that “Defendant Ocean 2 Beach School District (the ‘District’) does not oppose Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend the 3 Complaint for damages. Had Plaintiff asked for the District’s consent under Rule 15(a)(2), we 4 would have stipulated.” Dkt. 19, at 1. 5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) provides that “a party may amend its pleading only with the

6 opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. The court should freely give leave when 7 justice so requires.” Courts may consider a number of factors, including undue delay, bad faith or 8 dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue 9 prejudice to opposing parties, harm to the movant if leave is not granted, and futility of the 10 amendment. Foman v. Davis, 37 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Martinez v. Newport Beach City, 125 11 F.3d 777, 785 (9th Cir. 1997). 12 The motion to amend is unopposed and the Court should freely give leave to amend when 13 justice so requires, as is the case here. THEREFORE, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion 14 for Leave to Amend the Complaint for Damages. Dkt. 17. Plaintiff shall file a Second Amended

15 Complaint no later than May 13, 2020. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and 18 to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. 19 Dated this 6th day of May, 2020. A 20

21 ROBERT J. BRYAN United States District Judge 22

23 24

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

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 ERIN CHRISTON, an individual, CASE NO. 19-cv-6214-RJB-JRC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 12 v. MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT 13 OCEAN BEACH SCHOOL DISTRICT, 14 Defendant. 15 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend the 16 Complaint for Damages. Dkt. 17. The Court has considered the pleadings filed regarding the 17 motion and the remaining file. For the reasons set forth below, the motion should be granted. 18 The motion provides that “Plaintiff Erin Christon respectfully seeks leave to file her 19 Second Amended Complaint for Damages to include a claim for post-termination retaliation 20 under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the Washington Law Against 21 Discrimination.” Dkt. 17, at 1. Plaintiff filed a copy of the proposed Second Amended 22 Complaint. Dkt. 18. 23 24 1 Defendant filed a response brief. Dkt. 19. The response provides that “Defendant Ocean 2 Beach School District (the ‘District’) does not oppose Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend the 3 Complaint for damages. Had Plaintiff asked for the District’s consent under Rule 15(a)(2), we 4 would have stipulated.” Dkt. 19, at 1. 5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) provides that “a party may amend its pleading only with the

6 opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. The court should freely give leave when 7 justice so requires.” Courts may consider a number of factors, including undue delay, bad faith or 8 dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue 9 prejudice to opposing parties, harm to the movant if leave is not granted, and futility of the 10 amendment. Foman v. Davis, 37 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Martinez v. Newport Beach City, 125 11 F.3d 777, 785 (9th Cir. 1997). 12 The motion to amend is unopposed and the Court should freely give leave to amend when 13 justice so requires, as is the case here. THEREFORE, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion 14 for Leave to Amend the Complaint for Damages. Dkt. 17. Plaintiff shall file a Second Amended

15 Complaint no later than May 13, 2020. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and 18 to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. 19 Dated this 6th day of May, 2020. A 20

21 ROBERT J. BRYAN United States District Judge 22

23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Christon v. Ocean Beach School District, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christon-v-ocean-beach-school-district-wawd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack