Jordan v. Wyndham Vacation Ownership Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 7 CHRISTINA JORDAN, 8 Case No. 2:21-cv-02228-CDS-NJK Plaintiff(s), v. 10 [Docket Nos. 54, 55, 56] WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP, 11 INC., et al., 12 Defendant(s). 13 Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs’ motions for leave to amend. Docket Nos. 54, 55, 14 56 19. Defendants filed responses in opposition. Docket Nos. 62, 63, 64. The Court does not 15 require replies or a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons discussed below, the motions 16 for leave to amend are GRANTED.1 17 Requests for leave to amend the pleadings filed on or before the amendment deadline are 18 governed by Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 15(a) provides that “[t]he court 19 should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires,” and there is a strong public policy 20 in favor of permitting amendment. Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757 (9th Cir. 1999). The Ninth 21 Circuit has made clear that Rule 15(a) is to be applied with “extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, 22 LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). Under Rule 15(a), courts 23 consider various factors, including: (1) bad faith; (2) undue delay; (3) prejudice to the opposing 24 party; (4) futility of the amendment; and (5) whether the plaintiff has previously amended the 25 1 It is within a magistrate judge’s authority to grant leave to amend. Vandehey v. Real Soc. 26 Dynamics, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-02230-JAD-NJK, 2017 WL 4411042, at *1 n.4 (D. Nev. Oct. 4, 2017) (citing U.S. Dominator, Inc. v. Factory Ship Robert E. Resoff, 768 F.2d 1099, 1102 n.1 (9th Cir. 27 1985) and Morgal v. Maricopa Cnty. Bd. of Sup’rs., 284 F.R.D. 452, 458 (D. Ariz. 2012)). 28 1} complaint. See id. at 1052. Not all of these factors carry equal weight and prejudice is the 2 “touchstone.” Jd. Absent a showing of prejudice or a strong showing of any of the remaining factors, there is a presumption that leave to amend should be granted. /d. The party opposing the 4], amendment bears the burden of showing why leave should be denied. Desert Protective Council 5] v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 927 F. Supp. 2d 949, 962 (S.D. Cal. 2013) (citing Genentech, Inc. v. 6 Abbott Labs., 127 F.R.D. 529, 530-31 (N.D. Cal. 1989)). 7 Defendants have not met their burden of showing that the amendment should be 8 disallowed. Defendants oppose leave to amend on futility grounds. See Docket Nos. 62, 63, 64. Although futility can be a ground to deny leave to amend, Novak v. United States, 795 F.3d 1012, 10] 1020 (9th Cir. 2015), courts do not generally deny leave to amend on that ground, Underwood v. 11] O’Reilly Auto Enterps., LLC, 342 F.R.D. 338, 346-47 (D. Nev. 2022). “Ordinarily, courts will 12 defer consideration of challenges to the merits of a proposed amended pleading until after leave to 13] amend is granted and the amended pleading is filed.” Netbula, LLC v. Distinct Corp., 212 F.R.D. 14] 534, 539 (N.D. Cal. 2003). Deferring ruling on the sufficiency of the allegations is preferred in 15] light of the more liberal standards applicable to motions to amend and the fact that the parties’ 16] arguments are better developed through a motion to dismiss. See, e.g., in re Dynamic Random 17 Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litig., 536 F. Supp. 2d 1129, 1135-36 (N.D. Cal. 2008). The 18] Court has not been given sufficient reason to chart a different course in this case. 19 Accordingly, the motions for leave to amend are GRANTED. Plaintiffs must promptly file the proposed amended complaints on the docket and serve them. See Local Rule 15-1(b). 22 Dated: April 10, 2023 UA. Nancy J. Keppe\, 24 United States Magistrate Judge 25 26 27 28