Weyl v. DEPCOM Power Inc.

S.D. California

Weyl v. DEPCOM Power Inc.

DecidedJuly 17, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-00741

StatusUnknown

This text of Weyl v. DEPCOM Power Inc. (Weyl v. DEPCOM Power Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Weyl v. DEPCOM Power Inc., (S.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GREGORY WEYL, Case No. 25-cv-00741-BAS-DEB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 13 v. PARTIES’ JOINT MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT 14 DEPCOM POWER, INC., et al., (ECF No. 12) 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Gregory Weyl and Defendant1 DEPCOM 20 Power Inc.’s (“DEPCOM”) Joint Stipulation to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). 21 (ECF No. 12.) “In general, a court should liberally allow a party to amend its pleading.” 22 Sonoma Cty. Ass’n of Retired Emps. v. Sonoma Cty., 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013) 23 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)); see also Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 24 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001) (“A district court shall grant leave to amend freely when justice 25 so requires.’”). Further, a party may amend its pleading without a court order where the 26 opposing party consents in writing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 27 1 The Court notes that DEPCOM is the sole named Defendant, whereas the remaining Defendants 28 1 Here, considering (i) the broad policy favoring amendments to pleadings and (11) the 2 || parties’ joint motion, which indicates DEPCOM’s consent to the amendment, the Court 3 || GRANTS IN PART the Joint Motion to the extent it seeks leave for Plaintiff to file a FAC. 4 However, the Court declines to approve the parties’ Joint Motion insofar as it 5 || pertains to service of the FAC via Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt (“NAR”), as 6 || well as the stipulated deadlines for DEPCOM to return the executed NAR and respond to 7 Complaint. (ECF No. 12 at 2:7—-13.) In light of the fact that the parties have access to 8 ||electronic service through the docket in this matter, the Court finds service via NAR is 9 |}unnecessary. Accordingly, Plaintiff shall file his FAC on or before July 25, 2025. 10 |} DEPCOM shall file a responsive pleading on or before August 8, 2025. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 ||DATED: July 16, 2025 (yatta Bahar te 14 H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ~_9_

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GREGORY WEYL, Case No. 25-cv-00741-BAS-DEB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 13 v. PARTIES’ JOINT MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT 14 DEPCOM POWER, INC., et al., (ECF No. 12) 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Gregory Weyl and Defendant1 DEPCOM 20 Power Inc.’s (“DEPCOM”) Joint Stipulation to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). 21 (ECF No. 12.) “In general, a court should liberally allow a party to amend its pleading.” 22 Sonoma Cty. Ass’n of Retired Emps. v. Sonoma Cty., 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013) 23 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)); see also Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 24 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001) (“A district court shall grant leave to amend freely when justice 25 so requires.’”). Further, a party may amend its pleading without a court order where the 26 opposing party consents in writing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 27 1 The Court notes that DEPCOM is the sole named Defendant, whereas the remaining Defendants 28 1 Here, considering (i) the broad policy favoring amendments to pleadings and (11) the 2 || parties’ joint motion, which indicates DEPCOM’s consent to the amendment, the Court 3 || GRANTS IN PART the Joint Motion to the extent it seeks leave for Plaintiff to file a FAC. 4 However, the Court declines to approve the parties’ Joint Motion insofar as it 5 || pertains to service of the FAC via Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt (“NAR”), as 6 || well as the stipulated deadlines for DEPCOM to return the executed NAR and respond to 7 Complaint. (ECF No. 12 at 2:7—-13.) In light of the fact that the parties have access to 8 ||electronic service through the docket in this matter, the Court finds service via NAR is 9 |}unnecessary. Accordingly, Plaintiff shall file his FAC on or before July 25, 2025. 10 |} DEPCOM shall file a responsive pleading on or before August 8, 2025. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 ||DATED: July 16, 2025 (yatta Bahar te 14 H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ~_9_

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Weyl v. DEPCOM Power Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weyl-v-depcom-power-inc-casd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack