Eritrean Association in Greater Seattle v. Gebrekidan

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 ERITREAN ASSOCIATION OF CASE NO. 3:24-cv-05517-DGE ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 12 Plaintiff, AMEND AFFIRMATIVE v. DEFENSES (DKT. NO. 57) AND 13 DENYING STIPULATED MOTION HENOCK TECKLE GEBREKIDAN et al., (DKT. NO. 58) 14 Defendant. 15 16 On February 10, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendants’ 17 affirmative defenses. (Dkt. No. 56.) The Court struck Defendants’ second, third, fourth, and 18 sixth affirmative defenses with leave to amend. (Id. at 6.) Defendants now move to amend their 19 affirmative defenses Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) and Local Civil Rule 20 15. (Dkt. No. 57 at 2.) Specifically, Defendants move to amend defenses two, three, four, five 21 and six and also seek to add two additional defenses. (Id.) 22 After an initial 21-day period for amendment as of right, pleadings may be amended only 23 with the opposing party’s written consent or by leave of the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 24 1 “Courts are free to grant a party leave to amend whenever ‘justice so requires,’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 2 15(a)(2), and request for leave should be granted with ‘extreme liberty.’” Moss v. U.S. Secret 3 Service, 572 F.3d 962, 972 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 4 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001)). “Five factors are taken into account to assess the propriety 5 of a motion for leave to amend: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of

6 amendment, and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.” Johnson v. 7 Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004). The factors do not weigh equally; prejudice 8 receives greatest weight. Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 9 2003). “Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman factors, there 10 exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Id. 11 In this case, the Defendants acted without delay in filing the instant motion to amend 12 shortly after the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendants’ affirmative defenses. 13 (Dkt. No. 56.) The Defendants have not previously sought to amend their Answer. There is no 14 evidence of bath faith—indeed, the Court specifically granted Plaintiff’s motion to strike

15 Defendant’s affirmative defenses with leave to amend. (Dkt. No. 56 at 6.) The new defenses— 16 self-defense and a First Amendment defense—do not “greatly alter[] the nature of the litigation.” 17 Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990). To the extent 18 Plaintiff may have to shift any litigation strategy, the case is still in its preliminary stages and 19 such a shift is not sufficient grounds alone to deny leave to amend. 20 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to amend. (Dkt. No. 57.) 21 Additionally, the Court notes that the Parties filed a stipulated motion “to grant Plaintiff a 22 fifty-day extension to file any opposition to the motion to amend” on the day this case became 23 ripe for the Court’s review—in other words, after such opposition was due. (Dkt. No. 58.) That 24 1 motion (Dkt. No. 58) is DENIED as moot. Except under highly unusual circumstances, the 2 Court does not consider motions to amend deadlines that are filed after the relevant deadlines 3 have passed. 4 In sum, Defendants’ motion (Dkt. No. 57) is GRANTED and the stipulated motion (Dkt. 5 No. 58) is DENIED.

6 Dated this 21st day of March, 2025. 7 a 8 David G. Estudillo 9 United States District Judge

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24