Hussaini v. Tsunami VR, Inc.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: January 3, 2022
• Docket: 3:21-cv-00667
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SYED HUSSAINI, and VPN.COM, LLC, Case No.: 3:21-cv-00667-H-BLM

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 13 v. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT 14 TSUNAMI VR, INC.,

15 Defendant. [Doc. No. 30.]

17 On December 2, 2021, Plaintiffs Syed Hussaini and VPN.com, LLC filed a motion 18 requesting leave to file an amended complaint. (Doc. No. 30.) Plaintiffs have not 19 previously amended their initial complaint in this action. On December 28, 2021, 20 Defendant Tsunami VR, Inc. filed a non-opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion. (Doc. No. 33.) 21 The Court, pursuant to its discretion under Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), determines the matter is 22 appropriate for resolution without oral argument, submits the motion on the parties’ papers, 23 and vacates the hearing scheduled for January 10, 2022. 24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) allows a party leave to amend its pleading 25 once as a matter of right prior to service of a responsive pleading. Thereafter, a party may 26 amend its pleading only by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse party 27 and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The 28 1 Ninth Circuit has instructed that this policy is “to be applied with extreme liberality.” 2 || Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001). “Five factors 3 ||are taken into account to assess the propriety of a motion for leave to amend: bad faith, 4 ||undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, and whether the 5 || plaintiffhas previously amended the complaint.” Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 6 || (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Nunes v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 815, 818 (9th Cir. 2003)). The decision 7 ||whether to grant leave to amend “is entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court.” 8 || Pisciotta v. Teledyne Indus., Inc., 91 F.3d 1326, 1331 (9th Cir. 1996). 9 The Court holds that the instant circumstances favor granting Plaintiffs leave to file 10 amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed their motion less than three months after 11 Defendant filed its answer to the initial Complaint. (See Doc. No. 17.) There is no 12 ||evidence that Plaintiffs unduly delayed seeking leave to file their proposed amended 13 |}complaint. There is also no evidence before the Court indicating that their request is made 14 |/in bad faith, would result in any prejudice, or would be futile. Defendant does not oppose 15 || Plaintiffs’ motion. (Doc. No. 33.) Accordingly, the Court, in its discretion, grants 16 || Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file their proposed amended complaint for good cause shown 17 in accordance with the policy that courts should freely give leave as justice requires. 18 || Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2); see also Owens, 244 F.3d at 712. Plaintiffs must file their amended 19 ||complaint within 14 days from the date of this Order. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 ||DATED: January 3, 2022 | | lil | | | 22 MARILYN HUFF, Distri ge 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 24 25 26 27 28