Ramachandran v. Best Best & Krieger

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 SATISH RAMACHANDRAN, Case No. 20-cv-03693-BLF

8 Plaintiff, ORDER VACATING MAY 6, 2021 9 v. HEARING AND GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT 10 BEST BEST & KRIEGER, et al., [Re: ECF 85] 11 Defendants.

13 Plaintiff Satish Ramachandran (“Plaintiff”) moves this Court for leave to file a First 14 Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants Best Best & Krieger, LLP; Christopher Diaz; 15 Christina Hickey; Kirk Ballard; David Kornfield; Christopher Jordan; and Pamela Jacobs 16 (“Defendants”). See Mot., ECF 85; see also Declaration of John Houston Scott, ECF 85-1. 17 Defendant Jacobs opposes on the limited grounds that Plaintiff should not be permitted to amend 18 the complaint prior to the resolution of the pending motions to dismiss in this case that are set to 19 be heard on January 14, 2021. See Opp’n, ECF 86. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court 20 finds the matter suitable for submission without oral argument and hereby VACATES the May 6, 21 2021 hearing date set for this motion. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file the 22 proposed FAC. 23 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), a party may amend its pleading once as a 24 matter of course within 21 days of serving it. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Further amendment of the 25 pleadings is allowed with the opposing party’s consent or leave of the court. Id. 15(a)(2). “Once 26 the district court ha[s] filed a pretrial scheduling order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 27 16 which established a timetable for amending pleadings[,] that rule’s standards control[].” 1 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992). Under the liberal 2 standard set forth in Rule 15, a court generally will grant leave to amend “unless amendment 3 would cause prejudice to the opposing party, is sought in bad faith, is futile, or creates undue 4 delay.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 607; Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Not all factors carry 5 equal weight. See Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). 6 || Prejudice to the opposing party must be given the greatest weight. Jd. Absent prejudice, or a strong 7 showing of bad faith, undue delay, or futility of amendment, there exists a presumption under Rule 8 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend. /d. (citation omitted). 9 || Plaintiffs motion for leave to amend satisfies the requirements of Rule 15(a). Plaintiff has 10 complied with the Court’s scheduling order, see Order, ECF 84. In order to avoid any prejudice to 11 Defendants, the Court will retain the January 14, 2021 hearing date for the three pending motions 12 || to dismiss. The Court will rule on those motions and consider the amendments to relate only to the 5 13 issue of futility of amendment. With the risk of prejudice addressed, Plaintiff is entitled to the 14 || presumption in favor of granting leave to amend. 3 15 Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion is GRANTED, and Plaintiff is to file a redlined version of a 16 || the amended complaint on or before January 4, 2021.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 |] Dated: December 24, 2020 kom Lh han tn) 21 Me BETH LABSON FREEMAN 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28