M.L. v. craigslist Inc

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: April 22, 2021
• Docket: 3:19-cv-06153
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 M.L. , Case No. 3:19-cv-06153-BHS-TLF 7 Plaintiff, v. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 8 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND craigslist Inc. et al.,, 9 Defendants. 10

11 This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s unopposed motion to amend 12 complaint. Dkt. 166. This matter has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate 13 Judge. Mathews, Sec’y of. H.E.W. v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976); 28 U.S.C. § 14 636(b)(1)(B); Local Rule MJR 4(a)(4); Dkt. 19. For the reasons set forth below, the 15 Court grants plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend. 16 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 17 The current pretrial schedule allows the parties until May 21, 2021 to join 18 additional parties and until May 28, 2021 to amend pleadings. Dkt. 158. On March 2, 19 2021, plaintiff filed this motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. Dkt. 166. 20 Plaintiff has filed a proposed second amended complaint in compliance with Local Rule 21 15. Dkt. 166-1. Defendant craigslist, Inc. has filed a statement of non-opposition to 22 plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend. Dkt. 170. The remaining defendants in this action 23 have not responded to plaintiff’s motion. 24 1 DISCUSSION 2 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), after an initial period of 3 amendment as of right, pleadings may be amended only with the opposing party’s 4 written consent or by leave of the Court. Leave to amend should be freely given when 5 justice so requires. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2); Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles, 754 F.3d

6 1147, 1154 (9th Cir. 2014) (“[T]his policy is to be applied with extreme liberality.”) 7 The Court must consider five factors when determining the propriety for leave to 8 amend: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, 9 and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint. Desertrain, 754 F.3d at 10 1154; Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004). Additionally, for each of 11 these factors, the party opposing amendment has the burden of showing that 12 amendment is not warranted. DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th 13 Cir. 1987); see also Richardson v. United States, 841 F.2d 993, 999 (9th Cir. 1988). 14 There is no evidence that plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint in bad faith or to

15 cause delay. Additionally, plaintiff has complied with the Court’s deadline for joining 16 additional parties and amending the complaint. Further, there is no indication that 17 allowing the requested amendment would unduly prejudice the defendants. 18 CONCLUSION 19 Based on the foregoing, the Court Orders: 20 (1) Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend (Dkt. 166) is GRANTED pursuant to 21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2); 22 (2) Plaintiff is directed to file the proposed second amended complaint (Dkt. 166- 23 1) without track changes as the operative complaint by April 30, 2021; and 24 1 (3) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to all parties. 2 Dated this 22nd day of April, 2021. 3 4 A 5 Theresa L. Fricke 6 United States Magistrate Judge

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24