Stevens v. Pierce County

W.D. Washington

Stevens v. Pierce County

DecidedApril 3, 2023

Docket3:22-cv-05862

StatusUnknown

This text of Stevens v. Pierce County (Stevens 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

Stevens v. Pierce County, (W.D. Wash. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 RANDALL STEVENS, CASE NO. C22-5862 BHS 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 PIERCE COUNTY, et al., 11 Defendants. 12

13 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Randall Stevens’ unopposed 14 Motion to Amend. Dkt. 14. 15 Leave to amend a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) “shall be 16 freely given when justice so requires.” Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 17 876, 892 (9th Cir. 2010). “This policy is ‘to be applied with extreme liberality.’” 18 Eminence Cap., LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting 19 Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001)). In 20 determining whether to grant leave under Rule 15, courts consider five factors: “bad 21 faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, and whether 22 the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.” United States v. Corinthian Colls., 1 655 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir. 2011). Among these factors, prejudice to the opposing party 2 carries the greatest weight. Eminence Cap., 316 F.3d at 1052.

3 Stevens’ motion is unopposed, Dkt. 15, and the Court concludes that granting 4 leave to amend is warranted. His Motion to Amend, Dkt. 14, is therefore GRANTED. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated this 3rd day of April, 2023. A 7 8 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 9 United States District Judge

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

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

1 2

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 RANDALL STEVENS, CASE NO. C22-5862 BHS 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 PIERCE COUNTY, et al., 11 Defendants. 12

13 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Randall Stevens’ unopposed 14 Motion to Amend. Dkt. 14. 15 Leave to amend a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) “shall be 16 freely given when justice so requires.” Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 17 876, 892 (9th Cir. 2010). “This policy is ‘to be applied with extreme liberality.’” 18 Eminence Cap., LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting 19 Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001)). In 20 determining whether to grant leave under Rule 15, courts consider five factors: “bad 21 faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, and whether 22 the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.” United States v. Corinthian Colls., 1 655 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir. 2011). Among these factors, prejudice to the opposing party 2 carries the greatest weight. Eminence Cap., 316 F.3d at 1052.

3 Stevens’ motion is unopposed, Dkt. 15, and the Court concludes that granting 4 leave to amend is warranted. His Motion to Amend, Dkt. 14, is therefore GRANTED. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated this 3rd day of April, 2023. A 7 8 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 9 United States District Judge

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Stevens v. Pierce County, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stevens-v-pierce-county-wawd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack