Greenburg v. Wray

D. Arizona

Greenburg v. Wray

DecidedJanuary 9, 2023

Docket2:22-cv-00122

StatusUnknown

This text of Greenburg v. Wray (Greenburg v. Wray) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Greenburg v. Wray, (D. Ariz. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Mark Alan Greenburg, No. CV-22-00122-PHX-DLR

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Amanda Wray, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 16 At issue is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 46.) 17 Leave to amend should be given freely, Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), especially when, as here, 18 leave it sought within the deadline for amending pleadings. (Doc. 8 at 2 (“The parties shall 19 endeavor not to oppose motions to amend filed . . . within the time set forth for amending 20 pleadings and joining parties in the Rule 16 Scheduling Order.”).) When assessing the 21 propriety of a motion for leave to amend, the court considers factors such as: “(1) bad 22 faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of amendment; and 23 (5) whether plaintiff has previously amended his complaint.” Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 24 911 F.2d 367, 373 (9th Cir. 1990). 25 Here, despite Rule 15’s liberal standard and the fact that Plaintiff filed his motion 26 within the deadline for amending pleadings, Defendants oppose the motion, arguing that it 27 is untimely and, consequently, prejudicial. (Doc. 48.) The Court disagrees. Plaintiff’s 28 motion was filed within the deadline for amending pleadings, and the prejudice Defendants 1 || complain of is the ordinary inconvenience that accompanies the addition of new parties 2|| and claims. If necessary, the parties may stipulate to modifications of the scheduling order || to accommodate the new parties and claims. Such modifications can mitigate the inconvenience Defendants articulate without depriving Plaintiff of the opportunity to freely || amend. 6 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend (Doc. 46) is 7\| GRANTED. 8 Dated this 9th day of January, 2023. 9 10 ll {Z, 12 _- {UO 13 Upited States Dictic Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-

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

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Mark Alan Greenburg, No. CV-22-00122-PHX-DLR

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Amanda Wray, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 16 At issue is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 46.) 17 Leave to amend should be given freely, Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), especially when, as here, 18 leave it sought within the deadline for amending pleadings. (Doc. 8 at 2 (“The parties shall 19 endeavor not to oppose motions to amend filed . . . within the time set forth for amending 20 pleadings and joining parties in the Rule 16 Scheduling Order.”).) When assessing the 21 propriety of a motion for leave to amend, the court considers factors such as: “(1) bad 22 faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of amendment; and 23 (5) whether plaintiff has previously amended his complaint.” Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 24 911 F.2d 367, 373 (9th Cir. 1990). 25 Here, despite Rule 15’s liberal standard and the fact that Plaintiff filed his motion 26 within the deadline for amending pleadings, Defendants oppose the motion, arguing that it 27 is untimely and, consequently, prejudicial. (Doc. 48.) The Court disagrees. Plaintiff’s 28 motion was filed within the deadline for amending pleadings, and the prejudice Defendants 1 || complain of is the ordinary inconvenience that accompanies the addition of new parties 2|| and claims. If necessary, the parties may stipulate to modifications of the scheduling order || to accommodate the new parties and claims. Such modifications can mitigate the inconvenience Defendants articulate without depriving Plaintiff of the opportunity to freely || amend. 6 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend (Doc. 46) is 7\| GRANTED. 8 Dated this 9th day of January, 2023. 9 10 ll {Z, 12 _- {UO 13 Upited States Dictic Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Greenburg v. Wray, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greenburg-v-wray-azd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack