Nay v. BNSF Railway Company

W.D. Washington

Nay v. BNSF Railway Company

DecidedNovember 27, 2019

Docket3:19-cv-05425

StatusUnknown

This text of Nay v. BNSF Railway Company (Nay v. BNSF Railway Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nay v. BNSF Railway Company, (W.D. Wash. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 TIM NAY, et al., 9 Plaintiffs, Case No. 3:19-cv-5425-BHS-MLP 10 v. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT 11 BNSF RAILWAY CO., et al., 12 Defendants. 13

14 This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File an 15 Amended Complaint, to which Defendants have filed no opposition. (Dkt. # 29.) Plaintiffs have 16 properly complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 and Western District of Washington 17 LCR 15 by filing a motion for leave to amend the complaint, along with a red-lined copy of the 18 proposed amended pleading attached as an exhibit. (Id.) 19 The Court is afforded discretion to grant leave to amend, and “should freely give leave 20 when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The generosity in granting leave to amend is 21 “to be applied with extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 22 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2003). Courts consider five factors when deciding whether to grant leave to 23 amend: (1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of 1 amendment, and (5) whether the pleading has previously been amended. United States v. 2 Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir. 2011). An amendment is futile if it adds a claim 3 that could not withstand a motion to dismiss. Jones v. Cnty. Redevelopment Agency of L.A., 733 4 F.2d 646, 650-51 (9th Cir. 1984). However, prejudice “carries the greatest weight.” Eminence

5 Capital, LLC, 316 F.3d at 1052. “Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining 6 . . . factors, there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Id. 7 The Court, having reviewed Plaintiffs’ motion and proposed amended complaint, 8 GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amended complaint. (Dkt. # 29.) Defendants 9 have not opposed Plaintiffs’ request to amend, and there is no evidence that granting Plaintiffs’ 10 request will result in unfair prejudice and delay. 11 The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to the parties and to the Honorable 12 Benjamin H. Settle.

13 Dated this 27th day of November, 2019. 14 A 15 MICHELLE L. PETERSON United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

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

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 TIM NAY, et al., 9 Plaintiffs, Case No. 3:19-cv-5425-BHS-MLP 10 v. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT 11 BNSF RAILWAY CO., et al., 12 Defendants. 13

14 This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File an 15 Amended Complaint, to which Defendants have filed no opposition. (Dkt. # 29.) Plaintiffs have 16 properly complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 and Western District of Washington 17 LCR 15 by filing a motion for leave to amend the complaint, along with a red-lined copy of the 18 proposed amended pleading attached as an exhibit. (Id.) 19 The Court is afforded discretion to grant leave to amend, and “should freely give leave 20 when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The generosity in granting leave to amend is 21 “to be applied with extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 22 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2003). Courts consider five factors when deciding whether to grant leave to 23 amend: (1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of 1 amendment, and (5) whether the pleading has previously been amended. United States v. 2 Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir. 2011). An amendment is futile if it adds a claim 3 that could not withstand a motion to dismiss. Jones v. Cnty. Redevelopment Agency of L.A., 733 4 F.2d 646, 650-51 (9th Cir. 1984). However, prejudice “carries the greatest weight.” Eminence

5 Capital, LLC, 316 F.3d at 1052. “Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining 6 . . . factors, there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Id. 7 The Court, having reviewed Plaintiffs’ motion and proposed amended complaint, 8 GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amended complaint. (Dkt. # 29.) Defendants 9 have not opposed Plaintiffs’ request to amend, and there is no evidence that granting Plaintiffs’ 10 request will result in unfair prejudice and delay. 11 The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to the parties and to the Honorable 12 Benjamin H. Settle.

13 Dated this 27th day of November, 2019. 14 A 15 MICHELLE L. PETERSON United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Nay v. BNSF Railway Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nay-v-bnsf-railway-company-wawd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack