Larry L. Hunter v. America First Credit Union

D. Nevada

Larry L. Hunter v. America First Credit Union

DecidedSeptember 30, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-01960

StatusUnknown

This text of Larry L. Hunter v. America First Credit Union (Larry L. Hunter v. America First Credit Union) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Larry L. Hunter v. America First Credit Union, (D. Nev. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4

5 Larry L. Hunter, Case No. 2:24-cv-01960-APG-NJK 6 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 7 v. [Docket Nos. 39, 40] 8 America First Credit Union, 9 Defendant(s). 10 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. 11 Docket No. 40; see also Docket No. 37 (second amended complaint).1 Defendant did not file a 12 response to the motion, but did preemptively argue in an earlier reply brief that leave to amend is 13 not warranted on futility grounds. Docket 38 at 4-5. 14 Leave to amend is granted with “extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, 15 Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003). The party opposing amendment bears the burden of 16 persuasion. Underwood v. O’Reilly Auto Enters., LLC, 342 F.R.D. 338, 343 (D. Nev. 2022). 17 Courts rarely deny leave to amend on futility grounds, as merits arguments are generally better 18 presented in fulsome motion practice specific to those issues. See id. at 346 (quoting Netbula, LLC 19 v. Distinct Corp., 212 F.R.D. 534, 539 (N.D. Cal. 2003)). 20 The Court is not persuaded that leave to amend should be denied. Addressing the merits 21 of the second amended complaint is better left to a motion to dismiss or other appropriate motion 22 practice, rather than cobbling together the arguments from an earlier reply brief. 23 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (Docket No. 24 40) is GRANTED. The Clerk’s Office is INSTRUCTED to remove the “proposed” demarcation 25 from the docket text for Docket No. 37, as that document will serve as the operative second 26 amended complaint moving forward. Defendant must respond to the second amended complaint 27 28 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 2|| (Docket No. 39) is DENIED as moot. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: September 30, 2025

Nancy J. K 6 United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4

5 Larry L. Hunter, Case No. 2:24-cv-01960-APG-NJK 6 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 7 v. [Docket Nos. 39, 40] 8 America First Credit Union, 9 Defendant(s). 10 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. 11 Docket No. 40; see also Docket No. 37 (second amended complaint).1 Defendant did not file a 12 response to the motion, but did preemptively argue in an earlier reply brief that leave to amend is 13 not warranted on futility grounds. Docket 38 at 4-5. 14 Leave to amend is granted with “extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, 15 Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003). The party opposing amendment bears the burden of 16 persuasion. Underwood v. O’Reilly Auto Enters., LLC, 342 F.R.D. 338, 343 (D. Nev. 2022). 17 Courts rarely deny leave to amend on futility grounds, as merits arguments are generally better 18 presented in fulsome motion practice specific to those issues. See id. at 346 (quoting Netbula, LLC 19 v. Distinct Corp., 212 F.R.D. 534, 539 (N.D. Cal. 2003)). 20 The Court is not persuaded that leave to amend should be denied. Addressing the merits 21 of the second amended complaint is better left to a motion to dismiss or other appropriate motion 22 practice, rather than cobbling together the arguments from an earlier reply brief. 23 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (Docket No. 24 40) is GRANTED. The Clerk’s Office is INSTRUCTED to remove the “proposed” demarcation 25 from the docket text for Docket No. 37, as that document will serve as the operative second 26 amended complaint moving forward. Defendant must respond to the second amended complaint 27 28 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 2|| (Docket No. 39) is DENIED as moot. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: September 30, 2025

Nancy J. K 6 United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Larry L. Hunter v. America First Credit Union, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/larry-l-hunter-v-america-first-credit-union-nvd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack