STANLEY A. BASTIAN, District Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiffs Miller Marital Deduction Trust and Helen Miller's (collectively, "Plaintiffs") Joint Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint. ECF No. 27. In its Jury Trial Scheduling Order, ECF No. 24, the Court ordered that motions to amend pleadings in this matter be filed by October 23, 2017. Plaintiffs filed the instant motion on July 11, 2017 and attached their proposed First Amended Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial. ECF No. 27, Exhibit D. Plaintiffs seeks to include twelve causes of action, including: (1) Abatement of a Public Nuisance; (2) Abatement of a Private Nuisance; (3) Continuing Trespass; (4) Negligence; (5) Ultrahazardous Activity; (6) Contribution; (7) Contribution under Hazardous Substances Account Act; (8) Equitable Indemnity; (9) Breach of Contract; (10) Express Indemnity; (11) Waste; and (12) Declaratory Relief. Id. Defendants oppose the motion. ECF No. 30; 31. The motion was heard without oral argument.
Motions to amend pleadings are made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), which advises the Court that "leave shall be freely given when justice so requires." This policy "is to be applied with extreme liberality." Desertrain v. City of L.A., 754 F.3d 1147, 1154 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990)). Courts consider several factors to determine whether a party should be given leave to amend, including: (1) bad faith (2) presence or absence of undue delay; (3) prejudice to the opposing party; (4) futility of the proposed amendment; and (5) whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint. Id. at 1154. These factors do not carry equal weight; it is prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight. Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). "Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining [] factors, there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend." Id. (emphasis added).
After careful consideration, the Court finds that justice requires granting Plaintiffs' motion. Plaintiffs' proposed amendment relates to the central claims of the original Complaint, ECF No. 1, and was filed months prior to the motion deadline set in the Court's Jury Trial Scheduling Order. ECF No. 24. Moreover, this case is still in the early stages of discovery and the parties have ample opportunity to finish discovery efforts before the January 2, 2018 discovery deadline. Id. The Court, therefore, finds that the proposed amendment has not been made in bad faith; is timely; will not significantly prejudice the opposing party; and that the amendment is not futile. Accordingly, pursuant to the liberal pleading standard set forth in Rule 15(a), the Court
Accordingly,