Lone Star Utilities and Services LLC v. Lift Deployment Services LLC

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: July 8, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00415
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Lone Star Utilities and Services LLC, No. CV-25-00415-PHX-MTL 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Lift Deployment Services LLC, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Before the Court is Plaintiff Lone Star Utilities and Services LLC’s Motion to 16 Amend the Complaint. (Doc. 12.) Defendants have not appeared in this action, nor filed a 17 response in opposition.* For the following reasons, the Court will grant the motion. 18 I. 19 Under Rule 15(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend its 20 pleading once as a matter of course within: “(A) 21 days after serving it, or (B) if the 21 pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a 22 responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), 23 whichever is earlier.” If outside the twenty-one-day limit, as is the case here, “a party may 24 amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” 25 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 26 27 * The Court deems Defendants’ non-response as consent to the motion being granted. LRCiv 7.2(i) (explaining that if “counsel does not serve and file the required answering 28 memoranda . . . such non-compliance may be deemed a consent to the denial or granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily”). 1 II. 2 Plaintiff filed its complaint on February 6, 2025 (Doc. 1), and all Defendants have 3 been served as of April 2, 2025 (Docs. 8, 9, 10). More than 21 days have passed since 4 Defendants were served, and Defendants have not filed a responsive pleading or motion 5 under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f). Plaintiff also has not obtained written consent from 6 Defendants, and therefore, may only amended its pleading with leave of this Court. Fed. 7 R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 8 Rule 15(a)(2) requires courts to “freely give leave when justice so requires.” Id. The 9 policy in favor of allowing leave to amend must not only be heeded by the Court, see 10 Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962), it must also be applied with extreme liberality, 11 see Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001). In 12 determining whether to grant leave to amend, courts consider five factors: “bad faith, undue 13 delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, and whether the plaintiff has 14 previously amended the complaint.” Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles, 754 F.3d 1147, 15 1154 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). “Not all of the factors merit equal weight. . . . [I]t 16 is the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight.” 17 Eminence Cap., LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). 18 The Court assesses each of the five factors in turn. Based on the limited record, the 19 Court does not presume Plaintiff’s request is the result of either bad faith or undue delay. 20 Plaintiff explains that an amendment is necessary to clarify the allegations in the complaint 21 after learning more information about the alleged events. (Doc. 12 at 1.) The third factor— 22 the risk of prejudice to the opposing party—also weighs in favor of granting Plaintiff’s 23 motion. Defendants have not appeared in this action nor responded to Plaintiff’s complaint. 24 The Court has yet to enter a scheduling order in this case and therefore concludes that little 25 to no prejudice will result from permitting Plaintiff to amend its pleading. 26 The “futility of amendment” factor also counsels in favor of granting Plaintiff leave 27 to amend. Plaintiff seeks to add a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith 28 and fair dealing. (Doc. 12-1 ¶¶ 46-52.) Plaintiff also incorporates new allegations relating 1 || to alleged waiver and release agreements between the parties. (/d. Jf] 16-24.) As a result, 2|| the amendment is not futile but goes to the merits of Plaintiff's claims. See Missouri ex rel. 3|| Koster v. Harris, 847 F.3d 646, 656 (9th Cir. 2017) (“An amendment is futile when no set 4|| of facts can be proved under the amendment to the pleadings that would constitute a valid 5 || and sufficient claim or defense.’’) (internal quotations and citation omitted). 6 That brings the Court to the fifth and final factor: whether the plaintiff has || previously amended the complaint. Because this is Plaintiff's first request, the Court finds 8 || the fifth factor weighs in favor of granting Plaintiff leave. 9 I. 10 Accordingly, 11 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint (Doc. 12) is granted. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file its amended complaint no 14]| later than July 15, 2025. 15 Dated this 8th day of July, 2025. 16 Michal T. hurdle Michael T. Liburdi 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-