Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California grants Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for leave to file a second amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. The Court finds no bad faith, undue delay, prejudice, or apparent futility, and directs Plaintiffs to file the proposed complaint within three days; it also terminates the pending motion to dismiss and vacates the hearing.
Holdings
- Leave to amend should be freely granted when justice so requires, and the court granted plaintiffs leave to file their proposed second amended complaint.
- The second amended complaint will supersede the first amended complaint, so the clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion to dismiss and vacate its hearing.
Questions Presented
- Whether plaintiffs should be granted leave under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) to file a second amended complaint.
- Whether the Rule 15 factors of bad faith, undue delay, prejudice, futility, and prior amendment weighed against permitting amendment.
- Whether the pending motion to dismiss should be terminated and its hearing vacated because the second amended complaint would supersede the first amended complaint.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (13)
- AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951(followed)
- Chodos v. W. Publ. Co., 292 F.3d 992, 1003(followed)
- Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079(followed)
- Swanson v. United States Forest Service, 87 F.3d 339, 343(followed)
- United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979(followed)
- Chudacoff v. Univ. Med. Ctr., 649 F.3d 1143, 1152(followed)
- Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805, 808(followed)
- Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845(followed)
- Atkins v. Astrue, No. C 10–0180 PJH, 2011 WL 1335607, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2011)(followed)
- Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 758(followed)
Showing top 10 of 13.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…