Larrison v. Ocean Beauty Seafoods LLC

W.D. Washington

Larrison v. Ocean Beauty Seafoods LLC

DecidedJune 28, 2021

Docket2:20-cv-00906

StatusUnknown

This text of Larrison v. Ocean Beauty Seafoods LLC (Larrison v. Ocean Beauty Seafoods LLC) 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

Larrison v. Ocean Beauty Seafoods LLC, (W.D. Wash. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 RICHARD LARRISON, CASE NO. C20-0906-RSM 9 Plaintiff, v. 10 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S OCEAN BEAUTY SEAFOODS, LLC, et al., UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE 11 TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND Defendants. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 12 13

14 I. INTRODUCTION 15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Richard Larrison’s Motion for Leave 16 to File Amended Complaint. Dkt. #34. Defendants Ocean Beauty Seafoods, LLC and 17 18 Retriever Tender Alaska (collectively, “Defendants”) have not filed a response. For the 19 reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s unopposed motion is GRANTED. Given expiration of 20 case deadlines in this matter, Plaintiff is also ORDERED to show cause as set forth below. 21 II. BACKGROUND 22 This matter was filed on December 18, 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the District 23 of Oregon. Dkt. #1. After a transfer to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of 24 Washington in June 2020, this matter was stayed pending Plaintiff’s efforts to retain new 25 26 counsel. Dkt. #28. On May 3, 2021, this Court issued a revised scheduling order setting forth 27 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO deadlines for initial disclosures and parties’ joint status report. Dkt. #31. Plaintiff filed a 1 Motion to Amend Complaint on May 14, 2021. Dkt. #34. There has been no activity in this 2 3 case since Plaintiff’s motion, and parties’ deadline to submit a joint status report expired on 4 June 14, 2021. Dkt. #31. 5 III. DISCUSSION 6 A. Legal Standard 7 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), a “court should freely give leave [to amend] when 8 justice so requires,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Courts apply this policy with “extreme 9 liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003). Five 10 11 factors are commonly used to assess the propriety of granting leave to amend: (1) bad faith, 12 (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of amendment, and (5) whether 13 plaintiff has previously amended the complaint. Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 14 373 (9th Cir. 1990); Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). In conducting this five-factor 15 analysis, the court must grant all inferences in favor of allowing amendment. Griggs v. Pace 16 Am. Group, Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999). In addition, the court must be mindful of 17 the fact that, for each of these factors, the party opposing amendment has the burden of 18 19 showing that amendment is not warranted. DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 20 187 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Richardson v. United States, 841 F.2d 993, 999 (9th Cir. 1988). 21 This matter has been pending since December 2019, without significant process by 22 parties. Nevertheless, given that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is unopposed, the Court 23 cannot find that Plaintiff’s motion was in bad faith, would create undue delay, would prejudice 24 Defendants, or that amendment would be futile. Furthermore, this is Plaintiff’s first effort to 25 26 27 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO amend his complaint. For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to 1 File Amended Complaint, Dkt. #34. 2 3 B. Order to Show Cause 4 Following Plaintiff’s motion filed on May 14, 2021, there has been no activity in this 5 case. Parties’ deadline to file a joint status report expired on June 14, 2021. The Court needs 6 to hear from Plaintiff on this issue. In Response to this Order, Plaintiff is directed to write a 7 short statement explaining why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 8 This Response shall not exceed six (6) pages. Accordingly, the Court hereby finds and 9 ORDERS that Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause containing the detail 10 11 above no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order. Plaintiff’s failure to file 12 this Response will result in dismissal of this case. 13 IV. CONCLUSION 14 Accordingly, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS: 15 (1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend, Dkt. #34, is GRANTED; 16 (2) Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause containing the detail above no later than 17 fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order. 18 19 20 DATED this 28th day of June, 2021. 21

22 A 23 24 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25

26 27 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 RICHARD LARRISON, CASE NO. C20-0906-RSM 9 Plaintiff, v. 10 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S OCEAN BEAUTY SEAFOODS, LLC, et al., UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE 11 TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND Defendants. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 12 13

14 I. INTRODUCTION 15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Richard Larrison’s Motion for Leave 16 to File Amended Complaint. Dkt. #34. Defendants Ocean Beauty Seafoods, LLC and 17 18 Retriever Tender Alaska (collectively, “Defendants”) have not filed a response. For the 19 reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s unopposed motion is GRANTED. Given expiration of 20 case deadlines in this matter, Plaintiff is also ORDERED to show cause as set forth below. 21 II. BACKGROUND 22 This matter was filed on December 18, 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the District 23 of Oregon. Dkt. #1. After a transfer to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of 24 Washington in June 2020, this matter was stayed pending Plaintiff’s efforts to retain new 25 26 counsel. Dkt. #28. On May 3, 2021, this Court issued a revised scheduling order setting forth 27 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO deadlines for initial disclosures and parties’ joint status report. Dkt. #31. Plaintiff filed a 1 Motion to Amend Complaint on May 14, 2021. Dkt. #34. There has been no activity in this 2 3 case since Plaintiff’s motion, and parties’ deadline to submit a joint status report expired on 4 June 14, 2021. Dkt. #31. 5 III. DISCUSSION 6 A. Legal Standard 7 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), a “court should freely give leave [to amend] when 8 justice so requires,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Courts apply this policy with “extreme 9 liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003). Five 10 11 factors are commonly used to assess the propriety of granting leave to amend: (1) bad faith, 12 (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of amendment, and (5) whether 13 plaintiff has previously amended the complaint. Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 14 373 (9th Cir. 1990); Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). In conducting this five-factor 15 analysis, the court must grant all inferences in favor of allowing amendment. Griggs v. Pace 16 Am. Group, Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999). In addition, the court must be mindful of 17 the fact that, for each of these factors, the party opposing amendment has the burden of 18 19 showing that amendment is not warranted. DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 20 187 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Richardson v. United States, 841 F.2d 993, 999 (9th Cir. 1988). 21 This matter has been pending since December 2019, without significant process by 22 parties. Nevertheless, given that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is unopposed, the Court 23 cannot find that Plaintiff’s motion was in bad faith, would create undue delay, would prejudice 24 Defendants, or that amendment would be futile. Furthermore, this is Plaintiff’s first effort to 25 26 27 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO amend his complaint. For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to 1 File Amended Complaint, Dkt. #34. 2 3 B. Order to Show Cause 4 Following Plaintiff’s motion filed on May 14, 2021, there has been no activity in this 5 case. Parties’ deadline to file a joint status report expired on June 14, 2021. The Court needs 6 to hear from Plaintiff on this issue. In Response to this Order, Plaintiff is directed to write a 7 short statement explaining why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 8 This Response shall not exceed six (6) pages. Accordingly, the Court hereby finds and 9 ORDERS that Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause containing the detail 10 11 above no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order. Plaintiff’s failure to file 12 this Response will result in dismissal of this case. 13 IV. CONCLUSION 14 Accordingly, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS: 15 (1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend, Dkt. #34, is GRANTED; 16 (2) Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause containing the detail above no later than 17 fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order. 18 19 20 DATED this 28th day of June, 2021. 21

22 A 23 24 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25

26 27 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Larrison v. Ocean Beauty Seafoods LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/larrison-v-ocean-beauty-seafoods-llc-wawd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack