Jones v. FCA US, LLC

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: March 1, 2023
• Docket: 3:22-cv-01342
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEVEN JONES, an individual, Case No.: 3:22-cv-01342-GPC-WVG

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 13 v. LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 14 FCA US, LLC, a Delaware

Corporation; and DIPITO, LLC, a 15 [ECF No. 10] Montana Corporation, 16 Defendants. 17

18 Before the Court is Plaintiff Steven Jones’ motion for leave to file a first amended 19 complaint. ECF No. 10. The Court finds this motion suitable for disposition without oral 20 argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d), and accordingly VACATES the hearing on 21 this matter currently scheduled for Friday, March 24, 2023. Based on the following, the 22 Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint. 23 I. BACKGROUND 24 On September 7, 2022, Jones filed a Complaint against Defendants FCA US, LCC 25 and Dipito, LLC for breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of implied 26 warranty of fitness, and related causes of action. ECF No. 1 at 5–15. FCA and Dipito 27 1 answered the Complaint at the end of September and October, respectively. ECF Nos. 3 2 & 5. Roughly four months after FCA filed its answer, Jones moved for leave to file a first 3 amended complaint. ECF No. 10. Jones moves to add two causes of action to the 4 Complaint: a claim for breach of warranty against Dipito and a claim for breach of contract 5 against FCA. ECF No. 10-2 at 14–15. Defendants did not consent to the motion. ECF No. 6 10 at 2 & n.1. The Court set a briefing schedule, ECF No. 11, but neither Defendant FCA 7 US, LLC nor Defendant Dipito, LLC filed an opposition. 8 II. LEGAL STANDARD AND DISCUSSION 9 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) instructs that “[t]he court should freely give 10 leave [to amend the complaint] when justice so required.” Granting leave to amend rests 11 on the sound discretion of the trial court. Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers 12 v. Republic Airlines, 761 F.2d 1386, 1390 (9th Cir. 1985). This discretion is guided by the 13 strong federal policy favoring the disposition of cases on the merits and permitting 14 amendments with “extreme liberality.” DCD Programs Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 15 186 (9th Cir. 1987) (quoting United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 181)). 16 Because Rule 15(a) imposes a liberal amendment policy, the nonmoving party bears 17 the burden to show “why leave to amend should not be granted.” Genentech, Inc. v. Abbott 18 Labs., 127 F.R.D. 529, 530–31 (N.D. Cal. 1989). In determining whether an amendment 19 is appropriate, courts consider five factors: (1) undue delay; (2) bad faith; (3) “repeated 20 failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed”; (4) “undue prejudice to 21 the opposing party”; and (5) “futility of amendment.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 22 (1962); see United States v. Corinthian Colls., 655 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir. 2011). These 23 factors are not equally weighted; the possibility of delay alone cannot justify denial of leave 24 to amend. DCD Programs, 833 F.2d at 186. Of these factors, “it is the consideration of 25 prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight.” Eminence Cap., LLC v. 26 Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). “Absent prejudice, or a strong showing 27 1 || of any of the remaining Foman factors, there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor 2 || of granting leave to amend.” Jd. 3 Jones argues that the Court should grant his motion for leave to amend under these 4 || liberal standards. ECF No. 10 at 2—3. Jones reasons that this is the first motion for leave 5 || to amend; the case is in the early stages so prejudice, if any, to opposing parties 1s minimal; 6 || and his proposed amendments are not brought in bad faith. /d. Absent any opposition, the 7 || Court has no reason to believe that Jones’ motion to amend the Complaint was done in bad 8 || farther; that granting it would be unduly prejudicial; or that any other Foman factor counts 9 |lagainst him. Indeed, Jones’ motion to amend the Complaint was timely under the 10 || Magistrate Judge’s December 2022 Scheduling Order. See ECF No. 9 at 1. 11 CONCLUSION 12 Based on the above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a first 13 ||amended complaint. Plaintiff shall file the first amended complaint within five (5) days of 14 || the filing of this order. 15 The hearing on this matter, previously set for Friday, March 24, 2023, is hereby 16 || VACATED. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 || Dated: March 1, 2023 =<

20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3:22-cv-01342-GPC-WVG