Ebraz Exportadora Ltda. v. Terrafresh Organics, LLC

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: November 13, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00473
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 EBRAZ EXPORTADORA LTDA., Case No. 1:25-cv-00473-KES-SAB

11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND, AND 12 v. ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT 13 TERRAFRESH ORGANICS, LLC, (ECF No. 18) 14 Defendant. THREE DAY DEADLINE 15 I. 16 INTRODUCTION 17 Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to file a first amended complaint, 18 filed on October 24, 2025. (ECF No. 18.) The time period for filing a timely opposition has 19 now passed. L.R. 230(c). Accordingly, the Court vacated the hearing and took the matter under 20 submission to be decided on the papers. (ECF No. 20.) 21 II. 22 BACKGROUND 23 Plaintiff filed this action on April 23, 2025 against TerraFresh Organics, LLC asserting 24 claims for fraud and negligence. (ECF No. 1.) On June 16, 2025, Defendant TerraFresh 25 Organics, LLC filed its answer. (ECF No. 13.) A Scheduling Order was issued on September 2, 26 2025, detailing that any motions requesting leave to amend the pleading be filed on or before 27 October 27, 2025. (ECF No. 17.) 1 On October 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint that 2 is the subject of this order. (ECF No. 18.) On October 27, 2025, the Court reset the hearing on 3 the motion to December 17, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 9. (ECF No. 19.) Having 4 considered the moving papers, the lack of opposition, and the Court’s file, the Court found this 5 matter suitable for decision without oral argument, and vacated the December 17, 2025 hearing. 6 (ECF No. 20.) 7 III. 8 LEGAL STANDARD 9 Twenty-one days after a responsive pleading or a motion to dismiss is filed, a party may 10 amend only by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 15(a)(1)-(2). “Rule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when justice 12 so requires.’ ” Amerisource Bergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 13 2006) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)); see also Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 14 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting leave should be granted with “extreme liberality”). Leave to 15 amend under Rule 15 is “within the sound discretion of the trial court,” and “[i]n exercising this 16 discretion, a court must be guided by the underlying purpose of Rule 15 to facilitate decision on 17 the merits, rather than on the pleadings or technicalities.” United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 18 979 (9th Cir. 1981). 19 In determining whether to grant leave to amend, a court is to consider five factors: “(1) 20 bad faith; (2) undue delay; (3) prejudice to the opposing party; (4) futility of amendment; and (5) 21 whether the plaintiff has previously amended his complaint.” Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805, 22 808 (9th Cir. 2004). The factors are not weighed equally. Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 23 (9th Cir. 1995). “Futility of amendment can, by itself, justify the denial of a motion for leave to 24 amend.” Id. Undue delay, “by itself . . . is insufficient to justify denying a motion to amend.” 25 Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757-58 (9th Cir. 1999). “[I]t is the consideration of prejudice to 26 the opposing party that carries the greatest weight.” Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. The 27 burden to demonstrate prejudice falls upon the party opposing the amendment. DCD Programs, 1 | any of the remaining [ | factors, there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting 2 | leave to amend.” Id. 3 IV. 4 DISCUSSION 5 Plaintiff seeks leave to amend its complaint to protect its rights and clarify its claims for 6 | damages, including punitive damages. (ECF No. 18, p. 7.) Plaintiff's proposed amendments do 7 | not significantly alter the allegations set forth in the Complaint; rather, the proposed amendments 8 | clarify its claims for damages. (d. pp. 7, 9.) Plaintiff has not previously filed an amended 9 complaint and has filed this motion by the deadline set forth in the Scheduling Order. No 10 | opposition to the current motion has been filed. 11 The Court finds no bad faith, no undue delay, no apparent prejudice to the opposing 12 | party, no futility of amendment, and Plaintiff has not previously amended its complaint. In light 13 | of these findings, and given the motion was not opposed through any opposition briefs filed by 14 | the deadline to file an opposition, the Court finds granting leave to amend appropriate. See Fed. 15 | R. Civ. P. 15(a); Eminence Capital, 465 F.3d at 951; DCD Programs, 833 F.2d at 187. 16 V. 17 ORDER 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 19 1. Plaintiff's motion to amend (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED; and 20 2. Within three (3) days of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file the proposed 21 amended complaint (ECF No. 18) on the docket. 22 73 IT IS SO ORDERED. F- 2 Se 24 | Dated: _November 13, 2025 _ OO STANLEY A. BOONE 25 United States Magistrate Judge 26 27 28