Mounce v. USAA General Indemnity Company

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 CHARLES MOUNCE, CASE NO. 2:22-cv-1720 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 9 MOTION TO AMEND v. 10 USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY 11 COMPANY, a foreign corporation,

12 Defendant. 13

14 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Charles Mounce’s motion to amend his 15 complaint. Dkt. No. 24. Defendant USAA General Indemnity Company does not oppose 16 Plaintiff’s motion. Dkt. No. 30. 17 Courts “should freely give leave [to amend a pleading] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. 18 Civ. P. 15(a). But courts should withhold leave when there is “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory 19 motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously 20 allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [or] 21 futility of amendment.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Prejudice carries the greatest 22 weight in the Court’s analysis. See Eminence Cap., LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 23 (9th Cir. 2003). “Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman factors, 24 1 there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Id. (emphasis 2 in original). 3 None of the circumstances set forth in Foman weighing against leave to amend are

4 present here and Defendant does not oppose amendment. The Court therefore GRANTS 5 Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff must file the proposed amended complaint attached to his motion to 6 amend within fourteen (14) days of this order. See LCR 15. 7 8 Dated this 13th day of September, 2023. 9 10 A 11 Jamal N. Whitehead United States District Judge 12

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24