Filed: Nov. 17, 2015
Latest Update: Nov. 17, 2015
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . Taylor Howard alleges Kaiser Permanente Healthlink Alliance, LLC (Kaiser) sent him unauthorized phone calls in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. 227 et seq. See First Am. Compl., ECF No. 8. Despite the completion of service on Kaiser and Howard's efforts to contact defense counsel, Kaiser has not appeared. Howard seeks leave to amend his complaint to join Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., whom he represen
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . Taylor Howard alleges Kaiser Permanente Healthlink Alliance, LLC (Kaiser) sent him unauthorized phone calls in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. 227 et seq. See First Am. Compl., ECF No. 8. Despite the completion of service on Kaiser and Howard's efforts to contact defense counsel, Kaiser has not appeared. Howard seeks leave to amend his complaint to join Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., whom he represent..
More
ORDER
KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.
Taylor Howard alleges Kaiser Permanente Healthlink Alliance, LLC (Kaiser) sent him unauthorized phone calls in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. See First Am. Compl., ECF No. 8. Despite the completion of service on Kaiser and Howard's efforts to contact defense counsel, Kaiser has not appeared. Howard seeks leave to amend his complaint to join Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., whom he represents is Kaiser's parent corporation, and several other subsidiaries of Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. See Mot. Am., ECF No. 11. As no other party has appeared, the motion is not opposed. The matter is hereby SUBMITTED for decision without a hearing.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) governs amendments to the pleadings. That section provides, "The court should freely give [leave to amend] when justice so requires," and the Ninth Circuit has "stressed Rule 15's policy of favoring amendments." Ascon Props., Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989); accord Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1058 (9th Cir. 2011). "In exercising its discretion [regarding granting or denying leave to amend] `a court must be guided by the underlying purpose of Rule 15 to facilitate decision on the merits rather than on the pleadings or — technicalities.'" DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987) (quoting United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981)). However, "the liberality in granting leave to amend is subject to several limitations. Leave need not be granted where the amendment of the complaint would cause the opposing party undue prejudice, is sought in bad faith, constitutes an exercise in futility, or creates undue delay." Cafasso, 637 F.3d at 1058.
Here, the court is aware of no prejudice, bad faith, or delay associated with Howard's request for leave to amend. No scheduling conferences, discovery, motion hearing, or other deadlines have been set because no other party has appeared. And at this stage, the court cannot conclude an amendment would be futile.
The motion is GRANTED. The second amended complaint shall be filed within fourteen days of the date this order is filed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
