ORDER

CRAIG M. KELLISON, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff, who is proceeding with retained counsel, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security.

In opposition to defendant's pending motion to dismiss, plaintiff seeks leave to file an amended complaint (see Doc. 10) and has submitted a proposed amended complaint (see Doc 11). The court, therefore, construes plaintiff's opposition as a motion for leave to amend. Where leave of court to amend is required and sought, the court considers the following factors: (1) whether there is a reasonable relationship between the original and amended pleadings; (2) whether the grant of leave to amend is in the interest of judicial economy and will promote the speedy resolution of the entire controversy; (3) whether there was a delay in seeking leave to amend; (4) whether the grant of leave to amend would delay a trial on the merits of the original claim; and (5) whether the opposing party will be prejudiced by amendment. See Jackson v. Bank of Hawai'i, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990). Leave to amend should be denied where the proposed amendment is frivolous. See DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987).

Having considered these factors, the court finds it appropriate to allow plaintiff to amend her complaint.

A review of the docket reflects that defendant has notified the court regarding consent to proceed before a Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff, however, has not notified the court regarding consent. Pursuant to the court's scheduling order and Eastern District of California Local Rules, Appendix A, the time to do so has now expired.

Plaintiff shall show cause in writing, within 30 days of the date of this order, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to inform the court regarding consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, as required by the court's scheduling order. Submission of a completed consent election form shall constitute a sufficient response. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve on plaintiff a copy of the court's form entitled "Consent to Assignment or Request for Reassignment." Plaintiff is warned that failure to respond to this order may result in the dismissal of the action for the reasons discussed above, as well as for failure to prosecute and comply with court rules and orders. See Local Rule 110.

1. Plaintiff's opposition to defendant's to dismiss is construed as a motion for leave to amend and, so construed, the motion is granted;

2. This action shall proceed on the proposed amended complaint filed on December 26, 2017, which supercedes the original complaint;

3. Defendant's motion to dismiss (Doc. 9) is disregarded and terminated as a pending motion because it refers to a superceded pleading;

4. Defendant shall respond to the amended complaint and lodge the certified administrative record within 30 days of the date of this order, thereafter briefing on the merits of the case shall be governed by the court's July 26, 2017, scheduling order; and

5. Plaintiff shall show cause in writing within 30 days why the action should not be dismissed for failure to inform the court regarding consent.