Vargas v. Whatcom County Sheriff's Office

Opinion

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

10 Plaintiff, CASE NO. C20-0921-JCC-MAT

11 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 Defendants filed a Motion to Amend Answer, accompanied by a proposed amended 16 answer. (Dkt. 14.) Defendants seek to amend the answer to add an affirmative defense under 17 RCW 4.24.410, a statute providing immunity for police dog handlers, that was inadvertently not 18 pled due to an oversight by counsel. Plaintiff did not respond to the motion. The Court, having 19 reviewed the motion and proposed amended answer, hereby ORDERS as follows: 20 (1) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 provides that the Court “should freely give leave 21 [to amend a pleading] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Leave to amend may be 22 denied where there is undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive, undue prejudice to the opposing 23 party, or when the amendment would be futile. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 1 The Court here finds no basis for denying the unopposed motion to amend. Accordingly, 2 defendants’ Motion to Amend Answer (Dkt. 14) is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to lodge the 3 Amended Answer (Dkt. 14-1) on the docket.

4 (2) The Clerk is further directed to send a copy of this Order to the parties and to the 5 Honorable John C. Coughenour. 6 DATED this 5th day of November, 2020. 7 A 8 Mary Alice Theiler 9 United States Magistrate Judge

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23