Johnson v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 SHIRLEY A. JOHNSON, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-00491-LK 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 12 v. AMEND THE COMPLAINT 13 AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Shirley Johnson’s Motion to Amend the 17 Complaint. Dkt. No. 71. No Defendant has opposed the motion. 18 Under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a “court should freely give leave” 19 to amend a pleading “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “[T]his policy is to be 20 applied with extreme liberality.” Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 21 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 22 1990)). Courts may decline a motion for leave to amend “only if there is strong evidence of ‘undue 23 delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies 24 1 by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance 2 of the amendment, [or] futility of amendment, etc.’” Sonoma Cnty. Ass’n of Retired Emps. v. 3 Sonoma Cnty., 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 4 (1962)). Furthermore, “the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party . . . carries the greatest

5 weight.” Eminence Cap., LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam). 6 “Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman factors, there exists a 7 presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Id. 8 Johnson originally filed her complaint in King County Superior Court in January 2023, and 9 she “now seeks leave to amend her allegations against Defendants to conform to the evidence 10 collected during discovery and the governing pleading standards” in federal court. Dkt. No. 71 at 11 1. She has filed clean and redlined versions of her proposed amended complaint. Dkt. No. 72 at 12 23–35. Johnson filed her motion on September 4, 2024, before the September 16, 2024 deadline 13 for amended pleadings. Dkt. Nos. 66, 71. 14 The Court finds no evidence of undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive. And given that

15 Johnson’s motion is unopposed, there is no indication that amendment would prejudice 16 Defendants. See, e.g., Larrison v. Ocean Beauty Seafoods, LLC, No. C20-0906-RSM, 2021 WL 17 2646450, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Jun. 28, 2021). 18 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Johnson’s motion to amend her complaint. Dkt. No. 71. 19 She must file a clean version of her amended complaint within seven days of the date of this Order. 20 Dated this 24th day of September, 2024. 21 A 22 Lauren King United States District Judge 23 24