Ortiz v. Pierce County

W.D. Washington

Ortiz v. Pierce County

DecidedMay 1, 2024

Docket3:22-cv-05947

StatusUnknown

This text of Ortiz v. Pierce County (Ortiz v. Pierce County) 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

Ortiz v. Pierce County, (W.D. Wash. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 HECTOR CODY ORTIZ, III, Case No. 3:22-cv-05947-JLR-TLF 7 Plaintiff, v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 8 LEAVE TO AMEND PIERCE COUNTY, et al., 9 Defendants. 10

11 This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff Hector Cody Ortiz’s motion to 12 amend his complaint. Dkt. 46. NaphCare defendants Maria Ordonez and Johnathan 13 Slothower filed a response indicating they do not oppose plaintiff’s motion. Dkt. 48. The 14 remaining defendants (Pierce County, Patti Jackson Kidder, Gayle Pero and Miguel 15 Balderrama) did not file a response. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants 16 plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend. 17 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), at this point in the litigation, plaintiff “may 18 amend [his] pleading only by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse 19 party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.” In determining whether 20 to allow an amendment to a complaint Courts consider the following factors: “the 21 presence or absence of undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, undue prejudice to the 22 opposing party, and futility of the proposed amendment.” Moore v. Kayport Package 23 Express, Inc., 885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir. 1989). 24 1 Here, plaintiff’s complaint does not seek to add defendants and the current 2 defendants do not object to amendment. There is no evidence of undue delay, bad faith 3 or dilatory motive, undue prejudice to the current defendants, nor can the Court say at 4 this early stage of the action that the amendment is futile. Accordingly, the Court finds

5 plaintiff should be permitted to amend his complaint under the circumstances. 6 Plaintiff’s motion to file an amended complaint (Dkt. 46) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is 7 directed to file the proposed amended complaint (Dkt. 47, Attachment A) without track 8 changes as the operative complaint by May 15, 2024 pursuant to LCR 15(a). 9 10 Dated this 1st day of May, 2024. 11 12 A 13 Theresa L. Fricke 14 United States Magistrate Judge

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

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

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 HECTOR CODY ORTIZ, III, Case No. 3:22-cv-05947-JLR-TLF 7 Plaintiff, v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 8 LEAVE TO AMEND PIERCE COUNTY, et al., 9 Defendants. 10

11 This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff Hector Cody Ortiz’s motion to 12 amend his complaint. Dkt. 46. NaphCare defendants Maria Ordonez and Johnathan 13 Slothower filed a response indicating they do not oppose plaintiff’s motion. Dkt. 48. The 14 remaining defendants (Pierce County, Patti Jackson Kidder, Gayle Pero and Miguel 15 Balderrama) did not file a response. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants 16 plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend. 17 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), at this point in the litigation, plaintiff “may 18 amend [his] pleading only by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse 19 party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.” In determining whether 20 to allow an amendment to a complaint Courts consider the following factors: “the 21 presence or absence of undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, undue prejudice to the 22 opposing party, and futility of the proposed amendment.” Moore v. Kayport Package 23 Express, Inc., 885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir. 1989). 24 1 Here, plaintiff’s complaint does not seek to add defendants and the current 2 defendants do not object to amendment. There is no evidence of undue delay, bad faith 3 or dilatory motive, undue prejudice to the current defendants, nor can the Court say at 4 this early stage of the action that the amendment is futile. Accordingly, the Court finds

5 plaintiff should be permitted to amend his complaint under the circumstances. 6 Plaintiff’s motion to file an amended complaint (Dkt. 46) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is 7 directed to file the proposed amended complaint (Dkt. 47, Attachment A) without track 8 changes as the operative complaint by May 15, 2024 pursuant to LCR 15(a). 9 10 Dated this 1st day of May, 2024. 11 12 A 13 Theresa L. Fricke 14 United States Magistrate Judge

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ortiz v. Pierce County, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ortiz-v-pierce-county-wawd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack