Larry L. Hunter v. America First Credit Union

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Larry L. Hunter, Case No. 2:24-cv-01960-APG-NJK Plaintiff(s), ORDER v. [Docket Nos. 39, 40] America First Credit Union, Defendant(s). Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. Docket No. 40; see also Docket No. 37 (second amended complaint).1 Defendant did not file a response to the motion, but did preemptively argue in an earlier reply brief that leave to amend is not warranted on futility grounds. Docket 38 at 4-5. Leave to amend is granted with “extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003). The party opposing amendment bears the burden of persuasion. Underwood v. O’Reilly Auto Enters., LLC, 342 F.R.D. 338, 343 (D. Nev. 2022). Courts rarely deny leave to amend on futility grounds, as merits arguments are generally better presented in fulsome motion practice specific to those issues. See id. at 346 (quoting Netbula, LLC v. Distinct Corp., 212 F.R.D. 534, 539 (N.D. Cal. 2003)). The Court is not persuaded that leave to amend should be denied. Addressing the merits of the second amended complaint is better left to a motion to dismiss or other appropriate motion practice, rather than cobbling together the arguments from an earlier reply brief. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (Docket No. 40) is GRANTED. The Clerk’s Office is INSTRUCTED to remove the “proposed” demarcation from the docket text for Docket No. 37, as that document will serve as the operative second amended complaint moving forward. Defendant must respond to the second amended complaint 1 The Court liberally construes the filings of pro se litigants. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). 1} within 21 days of the issuance of this order. In light of the above, Defendant’s motion to strike (Docket No. 39) is DENIED as moot. Dated: September 30, 2025

Nancy J. K United States Magistrate Judge