Filed: Apr. 29, 2016
Latest Update: Apr. 29, 2016
Summary: ORDER SUBMITTING PLAINTIFF'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND WITHOUT ORAL ARGUMENT; VACATING HEARING; AND GRANTING MOTION [Re: ECF 21] BETH LABSON FREEMAN , District Judge . Plaintiff Nick Miletak, proceeding pro se, sues Defendant Sterling Infosystems, Inc., a company in the business of performing background checks, for errors contained in background reports that Defendant prepared for Plaintiff's potential employers. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant erroneously reported an active f
Summary: ORDER SUBMITTING PLAINTIFF'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND WITHOUT ORAL ARGUMENT; VACATING HEARING; AND GRANTING MOTION [Re: ECF 21] BETH LABSON FREEMAN , District Judge . Plaintiff Nick Miletak, proceeding pro se, sues Defendant Sterling Infosystems, Inc., a company in the business of performing background checks, for errors contained in background reports that Defendant prepared for Plaintiff's potential employers. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant erroneously reported an active fe..
More
ORDER SUBMITTING PLAINTIFF'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND WITHOUT ORAL ARGUMENT; VACATING HEARING; AND GRANTING MOTION
[Re: ECF 21]
BETH LABSON FREEMAN, District Judge.
Plaintiff Nick Miletak, proceeding pro se, sues Defendant Sterling Infosystems, Inc., a company in the business of performing background checks, for errors contained in background reports that Defendant prepared for Plaintiff's potential employers. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant erroneously reported an active felony in Santa Clara County when in fact Plaintiff has no criminal record that is lawfully reportable. Compl. ¶ 2. Plaintiff filed the complaint on September 11, 2015, asserting claims under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") as well as California statutory and common law, and Defendant answered on December 11, 2015.
Plaintiff now seeks leave to file a first amended complaint. Plaintiff's motion, filed March 21, 2016, indicates that Plaintiff wishes to (1) add a new claim under the FCRA and (2) identify five distinct claims under California statute. Pl.'s Mot. for Leave to Amend at 2, ECF 27. Plaintiff has attached a copy of his proposed first amended complaint in conformance with this Court's Civil Local Rules. See Civ. L.R. 10-1 (requiring that a party seeking leave to amend must submit a copy of the entire proposed pleading). Defendant's opposition to the motion, if any, was due on April 4, 2016. See Civ. L.R. 7-3(a) (opposition must be filed and served not more than fourteen days after motion was filed). Defendant did not respond to the motion within the time provided by the Civil Local Rules and still has not responded.
Plaintiff's motion is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), which "is very liberal and leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires." AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Given that liberal policy, Plaintiff's pro se status, and Defendant's lack of opposition, the Court orders as follows:
(1) Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend is SUBMITTED for decision without oral argument and the hearing date scheduled for July 28, 2016 is VACATED;
(2) Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend is GRANTED; and
(3) The Clerk shall file Plaintiff's first amended complaint, attached to his motion as ECF 21-1, on the docket with the docket entry "First Amended Complaint."
In granting Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend, the Court has not evaluated the merits of the first amended complaint, and Defendant is not precluded from raising any substantive arguments regarding the claims set forth in the first amended complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
