The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No.: 23-cv-1000-W-DDL
14 Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF
15 v. UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA’S MOTION FOR
16 CHRISTOPHER SANDERS, an
LEAVE TO FILE FIRST
individual, TAC AIR OPS, LLC,
17 AMENDED COMPLAINT [DOC.
KAPOWSIN AIR SPORTS, LTD, THE
27]
18 CITY OF SAN DIEGO, a municipality,
BROWN FIELD MUNICIPAL
19
AIRPORT, and DOES 1 through 25,
20 inclusive,
21
Defendants.
22
23
24 Pending before the Court is the United States of America’s Motion for Leave to
25 File First Amended Complaint [Doc. 27]. The Court decides the matter on the papers
26 submitted and without oral argument. See Civ. R. 7.1(d)(1).
27 The City of San Diego and Brown Field Municipal Airport (collectively, the
28 “Municipal Defendants”) oppose the Motion only on the grounds that granting the
1 || Motion before ruling on Defendants’ motion to dismiss [Doc. 23] would prejudice
2 Defendants. (Opp. at 2-3.) The Court has ruled on that motion. (See Order on Mot. to
3 || Dismiss (Doc. 32].) Defendants do not oppose the Motion on substantive grounds. (Opp.
4 || at 2-3.)
5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that after a responsive pleading has
6 || been served, a party may amend its complaint only with leave of court and leave “shall be
7 || freely given when justice so requires.” FED. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Granting leave to amend
8 in the sound discretion of the district court. Pisciotta v. Teledyne Industries, Inc., 91
9 || F.3d 1326, 1331 (9th Cir. 1996). Although the rule should be interpreted with extreme
10 || liberality, leave to amend is not to be granted automatically. Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii,
11 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990) (citations omitted). Five factors are considered to
12 || assess the propriety of a motion for leave to amend: (1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3)
13 || prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of amendment, and (5) whether the plaintiff
14 ||has previously amended the complaint. Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th
15 |] Cir. 2004).
16 In consideration of these factors, the Court GRANTS the United States’ Motion
17 || [Doc. 27].
18 IT IS SO ORDERED.
19 || Dated: September 28, 2023 \
20 pe lnLor
21 Hn. 7 omas J. Whelan
09 Unted States District Judge
23
24
25
26
27
28