Buenrostro v. City of Wilder, et al., No. 1:2021cv00304 - Document 16 (D. Idaho 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - Plaintiffs Motion for Amend (Dkt. 15 ) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is directed to formally file his First Amended Complaint within 7 days of this Order. Signed by Judge B Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (lm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Buenrostro v. City of Wilder, et al. Doc. 16 Case 1:21-cv-00304-BLW Document 16 Filed 01/20/22 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO RUBEN BUENROSTRO, Case No. 1:21-cv-00304-BLW Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER v. CITY OF WILDER, a municipal corporation in the State of Idaho; WILDER HOUSING AUTHORITY, an independent public body corporate and politic in the State of Idaho; MAYOR ROBERT RHODES, individually and in his official capacity, Defendants. INTRODUCTION Before the Court is Plaintiff Ruben Buenrostro’s unopposed Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Dkt. 15). For the reasons explained below, the Court will grant the motion. BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in July 2021. After filing his initial complaint— and well before the March 1, 2022 deadline established in the Scheduling Order, see Dkt. 13— plaintiff filed a motion seeking to amend his complaint. Plaintiff MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:21-cv-00304-BLW Document 16 Filed 01/20/22 Page 2 of 3 explains that he has received a right to sue from the Idaho Human Rights Commission after filing his initial complaint and now seeks to add claims that were untimely prior to his receipt of the right to sue. Defendants have not opposed the motion. DISCUSSION Motions to amend are analyzed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). Rule 15(a) is a liberal standard and leave to amend “shall be freely given when justice so requires.” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2006). When determining whether to grant leave to amend, the Court considers five factors to assess whether to grant leave to amend: “(1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of amendment; and (5) whether plaintiff has previously amended his complaint.” Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 373 (9th Cir. 1990). Having considered these factors, the Court will grant leave to amend. Most significantly, plaintiff is well within the deadline established in the Scheduling Order and the defendants do not oppose the motion. Otherwise, there are no indications of bad faith, undue delay, or prejudice to the opposing party. MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2 Case 1:21-cv-00304-BLW Document 16 Filed 01/20/22 Page 3 of 3 ORDER IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Amend (Dkt. 15) is GRANTED. 2. Plaintiff is directed to formally file his First Amended Complaint within 7 days of this Order. DATED: January 20, 2022 _________________________ B. Lynn Winmill U.S. District Court Judge MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
