Hatley v. Mullan

W.D. Washington

Hatley v. Mullan

DecidedApril 10, 2023

Docket2:21-cv-00820

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Hatley v. Mullan, (W.D. Wash. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 LARENA HATLEY, CASE NO. C21-0820-JCC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 JOYCE L. MULLAN, 13 Defendant. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s motion for leave to amend her 16 Answer (Dkt. No. 57). Having thoroughly considered the motion and the relevant record, the 17 Court GRANTS it for the reasons explained herein. 18 Defendant seeks leave to amend her Answer to include the affirmative defense of failure 19 to mitigate. (See Dkt. No. 57-1 (proposed amended Answer).) Leave to do so under Rule 15(a)1 20 “shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Carvalho v. Equifax Services, LLC, 629 F.3d 21 876, 892 (9th Cir. 2010). The generosity in granting such leave is “to be applied with extreme 22 liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051–52 (9th Cir. 2003). The 23 Court considers five factors in deciding whether to do so: (1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) 24 prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of amendment, and (5) whether the pleading has 25 1 Defendant’s argument regarding application of the Rule 16(b) standard is inapt. (See Dkt. No. 26 59 at 5.) The Court previously vacated the Scheduling Order in this matter. (See Dkt. No. 54.) 1 previously been amended. See, e.g., United States v. Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d 984, 995 (9th 2 Cir. 2011). Prejudice is given the greatest weight. See Eminence Capital, LLC, 316 F.3d at 1052 3 (9th Cir. 2003) (describing it as the “touchstone of the inquiry”). 4 Based on an application of these factors, the Court FINDS that leave to amend is 5 warranted here. While Plaintiff suggests she would be prejudiced by amendment, (see Dkt. No. 6 59 at 12–13), she fails to describe how. And, while Defendant’s delay was significant and 7 concerning, the remaining factors all weigh in favor of amendment. Delay, alone, does not 8 warrant denying Defendant’s request. 9 Accordingly, Defendant’s motion (Dkt. No. 57) is GRANTED. Defendant shall amend 10 her Answer in the form provided in Docket Number 57-1 within two days of this ORDER. 11 12 DATED this 10th day of April 2023. A 13 14 15 John C. Coughenour 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

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

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 LARENA HATLEY, CASE NO. C21-0820-JCC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 JOYCE L. MULLAN, 13 Defendant. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s motion for leave to amend her 16 Answer (Dkt. No. 57). Having thoroughly considered the motion and the relevant record, the 17 Court GRANTS it for the reasons explained herein. 18 Defendant seeks leave to amend her Answer to include the affirmative defense of failure 19 to mitigate. (See Dkt. No. 57-1 (proposed amended Answer).) Leave to do so under Rule 15(a)1 20 “shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Carvalho v. Equifax Services, LLC, 629 F.3d 21 876, 892 (9th Cir. 2010). The generosity in granting such leave is “to be applied with extreme 22 liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051–52 (9th Cir. 2003). The 23 Court considers five factors in deciding whether to do so: (1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) 24 prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of amendment, and (5) whether the pleading has 25 1 Defendant’s argument regarding application of the Rule 16(b) standard is inapt. (See Dkt. No. 26 59 at 5.) The Court previously vacated the Scheduling Order in this matter. (See Dkt. No. 54.) 1 previously been amended. See, e.g., United States v. Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d 984, 995 (9th 2 Cir. 2011). Prejudice is given the greatest weight. See Eminence Capital, LLC, 316 F.3d at 1052 3 (9th Cir. 2003) (describing it as the “touchstone of the inquiry”). 4 Based on an application of these factors, the Court FINDS that leave to amend is 5 warranted here. While Plaintiff suggests she would be prejudiced by amendment, (see Dkt. No. 6 59 at 12–13), she fails to describe how. And, while Defendant’s delay was significant and 7 concerning, the remaining factors all weigh in favor of amendment. Delay, alone, does not 8 warrant denying Defendant’s request. 9 Accordingly, Defendant’s motion (Dkt. No. 57) is GRANTED. Defendant shall amend 10 her Answer in the form provided in Docket Number 57-1 within two days of this ORDER. 11 12 DATED this 10th day of April 2023. A 13 14 15 John C. Coughenour 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hatley v. Mullan, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hatley-v-mullan-wawd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack