McGraw v. Pacifica Ashwood LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 |} RANDALL SCOTT MCGRAW, Case No. 20-cv-954-MMA (KSC) 10 Plants ORDER GRANTING JOINT 11 || Vv. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 12 || PACIFICA ASHWOOD LLC, FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 13 Defendant.| [Doc. No. 47] 14 15 16 Randall Scott McGraw (‘Plaintiff’) and Pacifica Ashwood LLC (‘‘Pacifica’’) 17 ||(collectively, “the parties”) jointly move for leave to allow Plaintiff to file a First 18 || Amended Complaint (“FAC”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). See 19 ||Doc. No. 47. Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the parties’ joint motion. 20 ||Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to file Plaintiff's FAC (Doc. No. 21 ||47-1 at 3-16) as a separate docket entry. Pursuant to the parties’ motion, Pacifica’s 22 Answer to the original Complaint is deemed to be its Answer to the FAC. See Doc. No. 23 ||47 at 2; see also KST Data, Inc. v. DXC Tech. Co., 980 F.3d 709, 715 (9th Cir. 2020) (“A 24 ||defendant is not required to file a new answer to an amended complaint when the 25 |\allegations in the amended complaint do not ‘change the theory or scope of the case.’’’) 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 ||Dated: December 10, 2020 a □□□ “at Ta high HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 28 United States District Judge