Pitts v. Quest Diagnostic Clinical Laboratories, Inc.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: February 28, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-01271
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TRACY PITTS, as Guardian Ad Litem for Case No. 1:24-cv-01271-JLT-HBK MARY PITTS, 12 ORDER STRIKING THIRD-PARTY Plaintiff, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 13 v. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 14 FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED QUEST DIAGNOSTIC CLINICAL COMPLAINT 15 LABORATORIES, INC.,

16 Defendant, 17 UNILAB CORPORATION d/b/a QUEST 18 DIAGNOSTICS,

19 Third-Party Plaintiff v. 20 T.A.M. PROP. LLC, 21 Third Party Defendant, 22 23 On February 5, 2025, Plaintiff Tracy Pitts, as Guardian Ad Litem for Mary Pitts, filed a 24 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint, accompanied by an unsigned First Amended 25 Complaint. (Docs. No. 25, 25-1). Plaintiff seeks to amend the Complaint to correctly name 26 Defendant Unilab Corporation d/b/a Quest Diagnostics (“Quest”) and to add Third Party 27 Defendant T.A.M. Prop. LLC (“T.A.M.”) as a defendant. (See Doc. No. 25 at 6). Quest did not 28 file an opposition and the deadline to do so has passed. (See Local Rule 230(c)). After the 1 deadline expired but while Plaintiff’s motion remained pending, T.A.M. moved “to dismiss the 2 prayer for punitive damages in the First Amended Complaint.” (Doc. No. 26). 3 Importantly, because over twenty-one days passed between the filing of Quest’s answer 4 (Doc. No. 8) and Plaintiff’s motion, Plaintiff is not entitled to amend as a matter of course. See 5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Rather, as Plaintiff recognizes based on the filing of her motion, the 6 Court must grant Plaintiff leave to file the First Amended Complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 7 Thus, at the time T.A.M. filed its motion to dismiss, the First Amended Complaint had not been 8 filed and the motion to dismiss is premature. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to strike 9 the premature filing. 10 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that a court “should freely give leave 11 when justice so requires.” Courts “consider four factors when reviewing a decision whether to 12 permit an amendment: (1) bad faith on the part of the plaintiffs; (2) undue delay; (3) prejudice to 13 the opposing party; and (4) futility of the proposed amendment.” Lockheed Martin Corp. v. 14 Network Sols., Inc., 194 F.3d 980, 986 (9th Cir. 1999). Of these factors, prejudice to the 15 opposing party carries the greatest weight and, in the absence of prejudice or any of the remaining 16 factors, “there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” 17 Eminence Cap., LLC v. Aspen, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). 18 Here, in the absence of any opposition, the Court concludes all factors weigh in favor of 19 allowing amendment. There is no indication Plaintiff acted with bad faith; Plaintiff moved to 20 amend within three months of learning Quest was improperly named and that claims may exist 21 against T.A.M.; and it is early in the litigation such that neither Quest nor T.A.M. will be 22 prejudiced by simply having to defend against Plaintiff’s claims. 23 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 24 (1) The Clerk of Court shall strike T.A.M.’s premature Motion to Dismiss1 (Doc. No. 26); 25 and 26 (2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 25) is 27 GRANTED. Within three (3) days of this Order, Plaintiff shall file a signed copy of

28 1 T.A.M. may renew its motion once the First Amended Complaint is filed. 1 the proposed First Amended Complaint.” 2 > | Dated: _ February 28, 2025 Wile Th oare4 Hack A HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA ; UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ——— > Because the proposed First Amended Complaint is unsigned, the Clerk cannot be directed to file the 28 proposed First Amended Complaint as the operative pleading.