Collins v. AutoZone, Inc.

Opinion

1 | HONE LAW Jill Garcia, NV Bar No. 7805 2 jgarcia@hone.law Kathryn C. Newman, NV Bar No. 13733 3 || knewman@hone.law 701 N. Green Valley Parkway, Suite 200 4 || Henderson, NV 89074 Phone 702-608-3720 5||Fax 702-608-7814 6 || Attorneys for Plaintiff Eric Collins 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA ERIC COLLINS, an individual, Case No. 2:22-cv-00316-CDS-BNW 1] Plaintiff, 12 vs. 13 AUTOZONERS, LLC, a Nevada limited MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE liability corporation; JIMMY JAMES, an oT 2 AMENDED COMPLAINT AND 14 individual, DOES I through X, inclusive; and DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ROE BUSINESS ENTITIES, I through X, 15 |] inclusive, 16 Defendants. 17 18 Pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Local Rule 15-1, Plaintiff 19 |] Eric Collins (‘Plaintiff’) respectfully requests that the Court grant Plaintiff leave to file a First 20 || Amended Complaint in order to (1) substitute AutoZoners, LLC for Defendant AutoZone, Inc.; 21}|(2) add Defendant Jimmy James and asserts a claim of Intentional Infliction of Emotional 22 || Distress against him; and (3) assert a new claim of Negligent Hiring, Retention, Training and 23 || Supervision against AutoZoners, LLC. Plaintiff has met and conferred with Defendant 24 || AutoZone, Inc. (and prospective-defendant AutoZoners, LLC) in this matter; and all parties have 25q/// 26q/// H/// //

1 || consented to this motion in writing. This is the first request to amend the Complaint. 2 Dated this 19th day of July 2022. 3 HONE LAW ‘ q etl Mousa. 5 Jil\Garcia,QNV Bar No. 5 jgarcia@hone.law 6 Kathryn C. Newman, NV Bar No. 13733 knewman@hone.law 7 701 N. Green Valley Parkway, Suite 200 Henderson NV 89074 Attorneys for Plaintiff 9 Eric Collins 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 ARGUMENT 3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that “a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave,” which “[t]he court should freely 5||give .. . when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The Ninth Circuit has directed that 6 || this policy be applied with “extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). 8 In ruling on a motion for leave to amend, a court must consider whether the moving party 9 acted in bad faith or unduly delayed in seeking amendment, whether the opposing party would be 10 || preyudiced whether an amendment would be futile, and whether the movant previously amended 1] ||the pleading. United States v. Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir. 2011). “Absent 12 || prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining [factors], there exists a presumption under 13 Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” C.F. ex rel. Farnan v. Capistrano Unified 14 || School Distr., 654 F.3d 975, 985 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). 15 Here, Defendant has given its written consent to amend. See Exhibit B. Therefore, the 16 Court should grant the order as a matter of course. However, there are independent and sufficient grounds for the Court to grant leave to amend under Rule 15(a)(2) as well. 18 The presumption in favor of amendment is not countered by any of the concerns 19 |] articulated by the Ninth Circuit. The proposed amendments are brought in a timely manner and 20 good faith and the defendant would not be prejudiced by the amendment. Defendant 21 |] AutoZone, Inc., through counsel, first raised the issue of substitution of parties. This is the first 22 ||request for amendment; and the case is in the very early stages of litigation. The parties have 23 || participated in an Early Neutral Evaluation (“ENE”) and exchanged initial disclosures. No 24 || depositions have been scheduled as of yet, although depositions have been noticed. 25H/// 26H/// 2TH/// //

1 | II. CONCLUSION 2 The opposing party has provided written consent to amend the complaint as required 3 || under Rule 15(a)(2). Further, the presumption under Rule 15(a) is in favor of granting leave to 4 ||amend. For these reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court grant its motion. 5 Dated this 19th day of July 2022. 6 HONE LAW

a o ene 8 Jill Garcia, Bar No. jgarcia@hone.law 9 Kathryn C. Newman, NV Bar No. 13733 knewman@hone.law 10 701 N. Green Valley Parkway, Suite 200 Henderson NV 89074 11 Attorneys for Plaintiff 12 Eric Collins 13 14 15 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 16 The undersigned, an employee of Hone Law, hereby certifies that on the 19th day of July 17 2022, she electronically filed and served the foregoing with the Clerk of Court for the United 18 || States District Court for the District of Nevada using the CM/ECF system: 19 ‘ 20 Ct Candice Ali, an employee of HONE LAW 21 22 ORDER 73 IT IS ORDERED that ECF No. 27 is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to detach and separately file ECF No. 27-1. 25 ITIS SO ORDERED 26 rants Wee, 27 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE