Hawkins v. Aria Resort & Casino Holdings, LLC

Opinion

TAMIKA HAWKINS, Case No. 2:23-cv-01018-JCM-NJK Plaintiff(s), v. [Docket No. 33] ARIA RESORT & CASINO HOLDINGS, LLC, et al., Defendant(s). Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend. Docket No. 33. Defendant Aria filed a response in opposition. Docket No. 38. Plaintiff filed a reply. Docket No. 39. The Court does not require a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons discussed below, the motion for leave to amend is GRANTED.1 Requests for leave to amend the pleadings filed on or before the amendment deadline are governed by Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 15(a) provides that “[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires,” and there is a strong public policy in favor of permitting amendment. Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757 (9th Cir. 1999). The Ninth Circuit has made clear that Rule 15(a) is to be applied with “extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). Under Rule 15(a), courts consider various factors, including: (1) bad faith; (2) undue delay; (3) prejudice to the opposing party; (4) futility of the amendment; and (5) whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint. See id. at 1052. Not all of these factors carry equal weight and prejudice is the “touchstone.” Id. Absent a showing of prejudice or a strong showing of any of the remaining 1 It is within a magistrate judge’s authority to grant leave to amend. Underwood v. O’Reilly Auto Enterps., LLC, 342 F.R.D. 338, 342 n.2 (D. Nev. 2022) (collecting cases). factors, there is a presumption that leave to amend should be granted. /d. The party opposing the amendment bears the burden of showing why leave should be denied. Desert Protective Council 3} v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 927 F. Supp. 2d 949, 962 (S.D. Cal. 2013) (citing Genentech, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 127 F.R.D. 529, 530-31 (N.D. Cal. 1989)). Defendant Aria has not met its burden of showing that the amendment should be disallowed. Defendant opposes leave to amend on futility grounds. See Docket No. 38 at 3-6. Although futility can be a ground to deny leave to amend, Novak v. United States, 795 F.3d 1012, 1020 (9th Cir. 2015), courts do not generally deny leave to amend on that ground, Underwood, 9] 342 F.R.D. at 346-47. “Ordinarily, courts will defer consideration of challenges to the merits of a 10] proposed amended pleading until after leave to amend is granted and the amended pleading is 11] filed.” Netbula, LLC v. Distinct Corp., 212 F.R.D. 534, 539 (N.D. Cal. 2003). Deferring ruling 12] on the sufficiency of the allegations is preferred in light of the more liberal standards applicable to 13] motions to amend and the fact that the parties’ arguments are better developed through a motion 14] to dismiss. See, e.g., in re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litig., 536 F. 15] Supp. 2d 1129, 1135-36 (N.D. Cal. 2008). The Court has not been given sufficient reason to chart 16] a different course in this case. Accordingly, the motion for leave to amend is GRANTED. Plaintiff must promptly file 18] the proposed amended complaint on the docket and serve it. See Local Rule 15-1(b). Dated: December 27, 2023 7 A 3 a Nancy J. e United States Magistrate Judge