Free Order on Motion to Amend/Correct - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-02391-JAH-POR

Document 48

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA GEORGIA-PACIFIC CONSUMER PRODUCTS LP, a Delaware limited partnership, v. Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No.07cv2391 JAH (POR) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [Doc. No. 29]

LEE'S GENERAL TOYS, INC.,a California corporation, et. al., Defendants.

On February 15, 2008, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint to add two new Defendants. Plaintiff maintains Defendants identified a Chinese supplier and associated agent that supplies the alleged offending "Angelite" product. No opposition to the motion has been filed. The filing of an amended complaint after a responsive pleading has been filed may be allowed by leave of court and such leave "shall be freely given when justice so requires." Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). Granting leave to amend rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. International Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Republic Airlines, 761 F.2d 1386, 1390 (9th Cir. 1985). This discretion must be guided by the strong federal policy favoring the disposition of cases on the merits and permitting amendments with "extreme liberality." DCD Programs Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987). In practice, however, courts more freely grant plaintiffs leave to amend pleadings in order

07cv2391

Case 3:07-cv-02391-JAH-POR

Document 48

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

to add claims than new parties. Union Pacific R.R. Co. v. Nevada Power Co., 950 F.2d 1429, 1432 (9th Cir. 1991). Because Rule 15(a) favors a liberal policy, the nonmoving party bears the burden of demonstrating why leave to amend should not be granted. Genetech, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 127 F.R.D. 529 (N.D. Cal. 1989). Plaintiff must show "good cause" in order to amend a pleading once a pretrial scheduling order has issued pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b). Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). In addition, Civil Local Rule 7.1(f.3.c) expressly provides that "[i]f an opposing party fails to file the papers in the manner required by Local Rule 7.1(e.2), that failure may constitute a consent to the granting of that motion or other request for ruling by the court." Based on Rule 15(a)'s liberal policy, Defendants' lack of opposition, and after a thorough review of the case file in this matter, this Court finds that Plaintiff has shown good cause to amend the complaint as requested. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a first amended complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall electronically file the first amended complaint attached to its motion. DATED: April 17, 2008

JOHN A. HOUSTON United States District Judge

2

07cv2391