Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Velez v. City of Sacramento, 2:18-cv-01914-MCE-CKD. (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20191122978 Visitors: 18
Filed: Nov. 20, 2019
Latest Update: Nov. 20, 2019
Summary: ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. , District Judge . Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Kristopher Velez's ("Plaintiff") Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 11. Defendants City of Sacramento, Daniel Farnsworth, John Harshbarger, American Surety Company, and Bail Hotline Bail Bonds, Inc. (collectively, "Defendants") filed Statements of Non-Opposition. ECF Nos. 14, 15. Rule 15(a), under which Plaintiff's Motion is brought, provides that "leave [to amend] shall be fr
More

ORDER

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Kristopher Velez's ("Plaintiff") Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 11. Defendants City of Sacramento, Daniel Farnsworth, John Harshbarger, American Surety Company, and Bail Hotline Bail Bonds, Inc. (collectively, "Defendants") filed Statements of Non-Opposition. ECF Nos. 14, 15. Rule 15(a), under which Plaintiff's Motion is brought, provides that "leave [to amend] shall be freely given when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The policy of favoring amendments to pleadings, as evinced by Rule 15(a), "should be applied with extreme liberality." United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981).

Given that liberal standard, and in view of Defendants' non-opposition to Plaintiff's request, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 11, is hereby GRANTED.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Because oral argument would not have been of material assistance, the Court ordered these matters submitted on the briefs. E.D. Local Rule 230(g).
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer