Souza v. Marysville School District No 25

W.D. Washington

Souza v. Marysville School District No 25

DecidedSeptember 5, 2024

Docket2:24-cv-00689

StatusUnknown

This text of Souza v. Marysville School District No 25 (Souza v. Marysville School District No 25) 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

Souza v. Marysville School District No 25, (W.D. Wash. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 TRACY SOUZA, Case No. 2:24-cv-00689-TLF 7 Plaintiff, v. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 8 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND MARYSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 9 25, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint. 12 Dkt. 13. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73, and Local 13 Rule MJR 13, the parties have consented to have this matter heard by the undersigned 14 Magistrate Judge. Dkt. 7. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants plaintiff’s 15 motion for leave to amend. 16 BACKGROUND 17 The current pretrial schedule allows the parties until October 1, 2024 to amend 18 the pleadings. Dkt. 12. On August 16, 2024 plaintiff filed this motion for leave to file an 19 amended complaint. Dkt. 13. Plaintiff has filed a proposed amended complaint in 20 compliance with local rule 15. Dkt. 14-1, Dkt. 14-2. Defendants filed a response 21 indicating that they do not oppose plaintiff’s motion. Dkt. 16. 22 DISCUSSION 23 24 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), after an initial period of 2 amendment as of right, pleadings may be amended only with the opposing party’s 3 written consent or by leave of the Court. Leave to amend should be freely given when 4 justice so requires. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2); Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles, 754 F.3d

5 1147, 1154 (9th Cir. 2014) (“[T]his policy is to be applied with extreme liberality.”) 6 The Court must consider five factors when determining the propriety for leave to 7 amend: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, 8 and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint. Desertrain, 754 F.3d at 9 1154; Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004). Additionally, for each of 10 these factors, the party opposing amendment has the burden of showing that 11 amendment is not warranted. DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th 12 Cir. 1987); see also Richardson v. United States, 841 F.2d 993, 999 (9th Cir. 1988). 13 There is no evidence that plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint in bad faith or to 14 cause delay. Additionally, plaintiff has complied with the Court’s deadline for amending

15 the complaint. Further, there is no indication that allowing the requested amendment 16 would unduly prejudice the defendants. 17 DISCUSSION 18 Based on the foregoing the Court Orders: 19 (1) Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend (Dkt. 13) is GRANTED pursuant to 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2); 21 (2) Plaintiff is directed to file the proposed first amended complaint (Dkt. 14-2) as 22 the operative complaint by September 6, 2024; and 23 (3) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to all parties.

24 1 Dated this 5th day of September, 2024. 2 3 A 4 Theresa L. Fricke 5 United States Magistrate Judge

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 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 TRACY SOUZA, Case No. 2:24-cv-00689-TLF 7 Plaintiff, v. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 8 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND MARYSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 9 25, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint. 12 Dkt. 13. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73, and Local 13 Rule MJR 13, the parties have consented to have this matter heard by the undersigned 14 Magistrate Judge. Dkt. 7. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants plaintiff’s 15 motion for leave to amend. 16 BACKGROUND 17 The current pretrial schedule allows the parties until October 1, 2024 to amend 18 the pleadings. Dkt. 12. On August 16, 2024 plaintiff filed this motion for leave to file an 19 amended complaint. Dkt. 13. Plaintiff has filed a proposed amended complaint in 20 compliance with local rule 15. Dkt. 14-1, Dkt. 14-2. Defendants filed a response 21 indicating that they do not oppose plaintiff’s motion. Dkt. 16. 22 DISCUSSION 23 24 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), after an initial period of 2 amendment as of right, pleadings may be amended only with the opposing party’s 3 written consent or by leave of the Court. Leave to amend should be freely given when 4 justice so requires. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2); Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles, 754 F.3d

5 1147, 1154 (9th Cir. 2014) (“[T]his policy is to be applied with extreme liberality.”) 6 The Court must consider five factors when determining the propriety for leave to 7 amend: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, 8 and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint. Desertrain, 754 F.3d at 9 1154; Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004). Additionally, for each of 10 these factors, the party opposing amendment has the burden of showing that 11 amendment is not warranted. DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th 12 Cir. 1987); see also Richardson v. United States, 841 F.2d 993, 999 (9th Cir. 1988). 13 There is no evidence that plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint in bad faith or to 14 cause delay. Additionally, plaintiff has complied with the Court’s deadline for amending

15 the complaint. Further, there is no indication that allowing the requested amendment 16 would unduly prejudice the defendants. 17 DISCUSSION 18 Based on the foregoing the Court Orders: 19 (1) Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend (Dkt. 13) is GRANTED pursuant to 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2); 21 (2) Plaintiff is directed to file the proposed first amended complaint (Dkt. 14-2) as 22 the operative complaint by September 6, 2024; and 23 (3) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to all parties.

24 1 Dated this 5th day of September, 2024. 2 3 A 4 Theresa L. Fricke 5 United States Magistrate Judge

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Souza v. Marysville School District No 25, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/souza-v-marysville-school-district-no-25-wawd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack