Habbaba v. Gorilla Mind, LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ALPHONSO HABBABA, Case No.: 24-CV-921 JLS (AHG)

11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 12 v. MOTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED 13 GORILLA MIND, LLC, and COMPLAINT TO ADD PARTIES DOES 1–500, 14 (ECF No. 15) Defendants. 15 16 17 Presently before the Court is the Joint Motion for Plaintiff’s Leave to File a First 18 Amended Complaint to Add Parties (“Joint Mot.,” ECF No. 15). 19 Plaintiff Alphonso Habbaba brought this action against Defendants Gorilla Mind, 20 LLC, and Does 1 through 500, for alleged negligence, product manufacturing defects, 21 product design defects, failure to warn, and breach of implied and express warranties, 22 related to purported nutritional/dietary supplements. See ECF No. 1. Defendant Gorilla 23 Mind, LLC filed its Answer on June 14, 2024. See ECF No. 3. 24 The Parties were previously granted an extension of the deadline to file a motion to amend, 25 seeing as Plaintiff intended to add NutraCap as a defendant after learning that “NutraCap 26 played a material role in the design, medical safety evaluation, and marketing, in addition 27 to manufacturing, of the products.” ECF No. 14 at 2. In compliance with the extended 28 deadline, the Parties now request the Court grant Plaintiff leave to file a First Amended 1 || Complaint (“FAC”) in order to add NutraCap Holdings, LLC and NutraCap Labs, LLC as 2 ||defendants. Joint Mot. at 1. The Parties indicate Counsel for Defendant Gorilla Mind, 3 || LLC agrees in writing and does not oppose Plaintiff's Motion. Jd. 4 Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that when a party seeks to 5 ||amend a complaint after a responsive pleading has been filed, the party may do so as long 6 || as (1) the opposing party consents or (2) the Court grants leave to amend. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7 || 15(a)(2). “The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Jd.; see also 8 || Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990) (stating 9 || that leave to amend is to be granted with “extreme liberality’’). 10 Here, it appears the opposing party consents; thus leave is not required. See Joint 11 || Mot. at 2 (“Defendant agrees to in writing and does not oppose the Motion.”). However, 12 ||in any event, the Court finds leave should be granted as the Parties assert amending the 13 ||Complaint is necessary to bring in additional parties believed by Plaintiff to be liable for 14 || the injuries alleged in the operative Complaint. Jd. The Court also determines there is no 15 |}evidence of “bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, and/or futility,” 16 ||considering the determination should be performed with all inferences in favor of the 17 ||motion. Griggs v. Pace Am. Grp., Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999). 18 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion to Amend (ECF No. 15). 19 || Plaintiff SHALL FILE AND SERVE his proposed First Amended Complaint (ECF 20 || No. 15-2), within seven (7) days of the date on which this Order is electronically docketed. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: October 25, 2024 jae Lb monaitenus- 23 on. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 25 26 27 28