Helmi El Sensoussi v. SF Markets, LLC, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 1, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00600
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Helmi El Sensoussi, No. 2:25-cv-00600-RFB-MDC 4 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND 5 vs. (ECF NO. 17) 6 7 SF Markets, LLC, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 Pending before the Court is plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (“Motion”) (ECF No. 17). For good 10 cause shown and because it is unopposed, the Court GRANTS the Motion. 11 DISCUSSION 12 I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 13 This is a defective products case that defendant SF Markets, LLC properly removed from state 14 court. See ECF Nos. 1, 2, 5. Plaintiff moves to amend his complaint to substitute KeHe Distributors of 15 Nevada, LLC and KeHe Distributors, LLC (collectively “KeHe”) in place of defendant Roe Business 16 Entities. ECF No. 17 at 1. Planitiff stated that defendant SF Markets, LLC “agreed” to allow plaintiff 17 joining KeHe but defendant Culture Fresh, Inc. did not. Id. at 3. However, no defendants filed an 18 opposition or response to the Motion. 19 II. LEGAL STANDARD 20 Generally, a party may amend its pleadings “as a matter of course” within 21 days of serving it 21 or within 21 days after service of a responsive pleading under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f). Fed. R. Civ. P. 22 15(a)(1). Otherwise, amendments are only permitted “with the opposing party’s written consent or the 23 court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Rule 15 provides that “[t]he court should freely give leave when 24 justice so requires.” Id. Generally, the Ninth Circuit has held that Rule 15(a) should be “applied with 25 1 1 extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003). “Five 2 factors are taken into account to assess the propriety of a motion for leave to amend: bad faith, undue 3 delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, and whether the plaintiff has previously 4 amended the complaint.” Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles, 754 F.3d 1147, 1154 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 5 Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004)); see also Eminence Capital, LLC, 316 F.3d at 6 1052 (“undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure 7 deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of 8 allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.”) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 9 (1962). “In exercising this discretion, a court must be guided by the underlying purpose of Rule 15—to 10 facilitate decision on the merits, rather than on the pleadings or technicalities.” Roth v. Garcia Marquez, 11 942 F.2d 617, 628 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981)). 12 Ultimately, there is considerable deference to amendment and the analysis “should be performed with all 13 inferences in favor of granting the motion.” Griggs v. Pace Am. Grp., Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 14 1999). 15 III. ANALYSIS 16 Plaintiff seeks leave of Court to file an Amended Complaint. ECF No. 17. Defendants did not 17 file an opposition to the Motion and the time to do so has passed. See LR 7-2(d) (“The failure of an 18 opposing party to file points and authorities in response to any motion...constitutes a consent to the 19 granting of the motion.”). The Court also finds good cause exists to grant plaintiff leave to amend. There 20 is no apparent bad faith or undue delay in the motion for leave to amend. The amendments do not appear 21 to prejudice the defendants. The amendments also do not appear to be futile. There have also been no 22 amendments prior to this Motion. Thus, good cause exists to grant plaintiff leave to amend. 23 // 24 // 25 2 1 ACCORDINGLY, 2 IT IS ORDERED that: 3 1. The Motion to Amend (ECF No. 17) is GRANTED. 2. Plaintiff shall file the proposed amended complaint by no later than October 8, 2025. 5 6 7 DATED: October 1, 2025 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Hor/Maximitiand DAouvillier II 11 Ufiited Sa ops Judge 12 NOTICE 13 Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and 14 recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk 15 || of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal 16 || may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified 17 || time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file 1g || objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues 19 || waives the right to appeal the District Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the 29 || District Court. Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. 91 || Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, the plaintiff must immediately file 99 || written notification with the court of any change of address. The notification must include proof of 23 || Service upon each opposing party’s attorney, or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by 94 || counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may result in dismissal of the action. 25