Simatic v. Commissioner of Social Security

W.D. Washington

Simatic v. Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedJuly 6, 2021

Docket3:21-cv-05180

StatusUnknown

This text of Simatic v. Commissioner of Social Security (Simatic v. Commissioner of Social Security) 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

Simatic v. Commissioner of Social Security, (W.D. Wash. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 JENNIFER SIMATIC, CASE NO. 3:21-cv-05180-MJP-JRC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 12 v. AMEND COMPLAINT 13 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 14 Defendant. 15 16 This matter is before the Court on referral from the District Court (Dkt. 13) and on 17 plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint. Dkt. 16. 18 Plaintiff requests to amend her complaint to name the “Social Security Administration” 19 as defendant, rather than the “Commissioner of Social Security.” Dkt. 16, at 1–2. Plaintiff must 20 have leave of Court to amend her complaint at this stage in the litigation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 15(a). Defendant does not oppose the request to amend the complaint to name the 22 Administration as defendant although defendant “does not stipulate that the proposed 23 24 1 amendment is legally or factually sufficient, or otherwise results in a cognizable F[reedom of 2 Information Act] or Privacy Act claim related to Plaintiff’s request for records.” Dkt. 18, at 2. 3 “Generally, Rule 15 advises the court that ‘leave shall be freely given when justice so 4 requires.’” Eminence Cap., LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting

5 Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001)). Factors to be 6 considered in deciding whether to grant leave to amend include undue delay, bad faith, dilatory 7 motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice 8 to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, and futility of amendment. Id. at 9 1051–52. “Prejudice is the ‘touchstone of the inquiry under rule 15(a).’” Id. at 1051 (quoting 10 Lone Star Ladies Inv. Club v. Schlotzsky’s Inc., 238 F.3d 363, 368 (5th Cir. 2001)). Absent 11 prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining factors, there exists a presumption under 12 Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend. Id. 13 Here, no prejudice to defendant is apparent. Nor is there a strong showing of any of the 14 remaining factors as related to plaintiff’s proposed amendment. Therefore, the Court grants the

15 motion for leave to amend. Plaintiff shall file the proposed amended complaint (Dkt. 16-1) as 16 the operative complaint in this matter within 30 days of the date of this Order. 17 The Clerk’s Office shall send a copy of this Order to plaintiff. 18 Dated this 6th day of July, 2021. A 19

20 J. Richard Creatura Chief United States Magistrate Judge 21

22 23 24

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

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 JENNIFER SIMATIC, CASE NO. 3:21-cv-05180-MJP-JRC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 12 v. AMEND COMPLAINT 13 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 14 Defendant. 15 16 This matter is before the Court on referral from the District Court (Dkt. 13) and on 17 plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint. Dkt. 16. 18 Plaintiff requests to amend her complaint to name the “Social Security Administration” 19 as defendant, rather than the “Commissioner of Social Security.” Dkt. 16, at 1–2. Plaintiff must 20 have leave of Court to amend her complaint at this stage in the litigation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 15(a). Defendant does not oppose the request to amend the complaint to name the 22 Administration as defendant although defendant “does not stipulate that the proposed 23 24 1 amendment is legally or factually sufficient, or otherwise results in a cognizable F[reedom of 2 Information Act] or Privacy Act claim related to Plaintiff’s request for records.” Dkt. 18, at 2. 3 “Generally, Rule 15 advises the court that ‘leave shall be freely given when justice so 4 requires.’” Eminence Cap., LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting

5 Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001)). Factors to be 6 considered in deciding whether to grant leave to amend include undue delay, bad faith, dilatory 7 motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice 8 to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, and futility of amendment. Id. at 9 1051–52. “Prejudice is the ‘touchstone of the inquiry under rule 15(a).’” Id. at 1051 (quoting 10 Lone Star Ladies Inv. Club v. Schlotzsky’s Inc., 238 F.3d 363, 368 (5th Cir. 2001)). Absent 11 prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining factors, there exists a presumption under 12 Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend. Id. 13 Here, no prejudice to defendant is apparent. Nor is there a strong showing of any of the 14 remaining factors as related to plaintiff’s proposed amendment. Therefore, the Court grants the

15 motion for leave to amend. Plaintiff shall file the proposed amended complaint (Dkt. 16-1) as 16 the operative complaint in this matter within 30 days of the date of this Order. 17 The Clerk’s Office shall send a copy of this Order to plaintiff. 18 Dated this 6th day of July, 2021. A 19

20 J. Richard Creatura Chief United States Magistrate Judge 21

22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Simatic v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simatic-v-commissioner-of-social-security-wawd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack