Henry v. Komarovsky

W.D. Washington

Henry v. Komarovsky

DecidedApril 12, 2023

Docket3:22-cv-05523

StatusUnknown

This text of Henry v. Komarovsky (Henry v. Komarovsky) 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

Henry v. Komarovsky, (W.D. Wash. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 DAVID HENRY, CASE NO. 3:22-cv-05523-LK 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 12 v. AMEND COMPLAINT 13 TACOMA POLICE DEPARTMENT et al., 14 Defendants. 15

16 This motion comes before the Court on Plaintiff David Henry’s Motion to Amend 17 Complaint. Dkt. No. 58. Defendants do not oppose the motion. Dkt. No. 62 at 1. Nor is there any 18 evidence of “bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, and/or futility.” Owens v. 19 Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks 20 omitted) (quoting Griggs v. Pace Am. Grp., Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999)). For those 21 reasons, and because leave to amend should be “freely give[n] . . . when justice so requires,” Fed. 22 R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), the Court GRANTS the motion to amend, Dkt. No. 58. 23 24 1 Mr. Henry shall electronically file a clean (i.e., without highlights or strike-through text) 2 version of his Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 58-1, in the docket as an “Amended Complaint” 3 within 14 days of the date of this Order. 4 Dated this 12th day of April, 2023.

5 A 6 Lauren King United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

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

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 DAVID HENRY, CASE NO. 3:22-cv-05523-LK 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 12 v. AMEND COMPLAINT 13 TACOMA POLICE DEPARTMENT et al., 14 Defendants. 15

16 This motion comes before the Court on Plaintiff David Henry’s Motion to Amend 17 Complaint. Dkt. No. 58. Defendants do not oppose the motion. Dkt. No. 62 at 1. Nor is there any 18 evidence of “bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, and/or futility.” Owens v. 19 Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks 20 omitted) (quoting Griggs v. Pace Am. Grp., Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999)). For those 21 reasons, and because leave to amend should be “freely give[n] . . . when justice so requires,” Fed. 22 R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), the Court GRANTS the motion to amend, Dkt. No. 58. 23 24 1 Mr. Henry shall electronically file a clean (i.e., without highlights or strike-through text) 2 version of his Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 58-1, in the docket as an “Amended Complaint” 3 within 14 days of the date of this Order. 4 Dated this 12th day of April, 2023.

5 A 6 Lauren King United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Henry v. Komarovsky, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henry-v-komarovsky-wawd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack