United States v. Sanders

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No.: 23-cv-1000-W-DDL

14 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF 15 v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S MOTION FOR 16 CHRISTOPHER SANDERS, an LEAVE TO FILE FIRST individual, TAC AIR OPS, LLC, 17 AMENDED COMPLAINT [DOC. KAPOWSIN AIR SPORTS, LTD, THE 27] 18 CITY OF SAN DIEGO, a municipality, BROWN FIELD MUNICIPAL 19 AIRPORT, and DOES 1 through 25, 20 inclusive,

21 Defendants. 22 23 24 Pending before the Court is the United States of America’s Motion for Leave to 25 File First Amended Complaint [Doc. 27]. The Court decides the matter on the papers 26 submitted and without oral argument. See Civ. R. 7.1(d)(1). 27 The City of San Diego and Brown Field Municipal Airport (collectively, the 28 “Municipal Defendants”) oppose the Motion only on the grounds that granting the 1 || Motion before ruling on Defendants’ motion to dismiss [Doc. 23] would prejudice 2 Defendants. (Opp. at 2-3.) The Court has ruled on that motion. (See Order on Mot. to 3 || Dismiss (Doc. 32].) Defendants do not oppose the Motion on substantive grounds. (Opp. 4 || at 2-3.) 5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that after a responsive pleading has 6 || been served, a party may amend its complaint only with leave of court and leave “shall be 7 || freely given when justice so requires.” FED. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Granting leave to amend 8 in the sound discretion of the district court. Pisciotta v. Teledyne Industries, Inc., 91 9 || F.3d 1326, 1331 (9th Cir. 1996). Although the rule should be interpreted with extreme 10 || liberality, leave to amend is not to be granted automatically. Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 11 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990) (citations omitted). Five factors are considered to 12 || assess the propriety of a motion for leave to amend: (1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) 13 || prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of amendment, and (5) whether the plaintiff 14 ||has previously amended the complaint. Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th 15 |] Cir. 2004). 16 In consideration of these factors, the Court GRANTS the United States’ Motion 17 || [Doc. 27]. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 || Dated: September 28, 2023 \ 20 pe lnLor 21 Hn. 7 omas J. Whelan 09 Unted States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28