Feezor v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. et al
Filing
76
ORDER granting 72 Motion to Amend the Complaint signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 6/9/11. (Kaminski, H)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
LARY FEEZOR,
Plaintiff,
11
vs.
12
13
No. CIV S-10-0908 KJM CMK
SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO., et al.,
Defendants.
14
ORDER
/
15
This matter comes before the court upon plaintiff’s motion to amend the
16
17
complaint, filed on May 4, 2010. (ECF 72.) For the following reasons, plaintiff’s motion to
18
amend is hereby GRANTED.
19
I.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff filed his complaint in this court on April 14, 2010. (ECF 1.) Sears,
20
21
Roebuck and Co. and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. (together, “defendants”) filed an answer
22
on May 20, 2010. (ECF 20.) Plaintiff filed the present motion to amend the complaint on May
23
4, 2011 (ECF 72), in light of a recent Ninth Circuit decision, Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.)
24
Inc., 631 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2011). On June 3, 2011, defendants filed a statement of non-
25
opposition. (ECF 73.)
26
/////
1
1
II.
2
ANALYSIS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) states “[t]he court should freely give
3
leave [to amend its pleading] when justice so requires,” and the Ninth Circuit has “stressed Rule
4
15’s policy of favoring amendments.” Ascon Properties, Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149,
5
1160 (9th Cir. 1989). “In exercising its discretion [regarding granting or denying leave to
6
amend] ‘a court must be guided by the underlying purpose of Rule 15 -- to facilitate decision on
7
the merits rather than on the pleadings or technicalities.’” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833
8
F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987) (quoting United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir.
9
1981)). However, “the liberality in granting leave to amend is subject to several limitations.
10
Leave need not be granted where the amendment of the complaint would cause the opposing
11
party undue prejudice, is sought in bad faith, constitutes an exercise in futility, or creates undue
12
delay.” Ascon Properties, 866 F.2d at 1160 (internal citations omitted). In addition, a court
13
should look to whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint, as “the district
14
court’s discretion is especially broad ‘where the court has already given a plaintiff one or more
15
opportunities to amend [its] complaint.’” Id. at 1161 (quoting Leighton, 833 F.2d at 186 n.3).
16
Thus, leave to amend is rightly granted here, where the amendment will not cause
17
defendant undue prejudice, is not sought in bad faith, is not futile, and does not create undue
18
delay. Moreover, this amendment to the complaint is plaintiff’s first.
19
/////
20
/////
21
/////
22
/////
23
/////
24
/////
25
/////
26
/////
2
1
II.
CONCLUSION
2
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint is
3
GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to file Exhibit A of Docket Number 72 as plaintiff’s first
4
amended complaint. Each defendant shall file an answer within fourteen days of being served
5
this order.
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 9, 2011.
8
9
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
