MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

B. LYNN WINMILL, District Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is Plaintiff Shaakirrah R. Sanders' unopposed Motion to for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Dkt. 15). For the reasons explained below, the Court will grant the motion.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in June 2019. After filing her initial complaint — and well before the deadline established in the Scheduling Order, see Dkt. 12 — plaintiff filed a motion seeking to amend her complaint. Plaintiff wishes to amend her complaint to: (a) correctly identify Defendant University of Idaho as governed by the Board of Regents of the University of Idaho; (b) name Defendant Mark Adams in his individual capacity as well as his official capacity; (c) add Defendant Jerrold Long in his official capacity; and (d) make minor corrections to the existing factual allegations. Defendants do not oppose the motion.

DISCUSSION

Motions to amend are analyzed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). Rule 15(a) is a liberal standard and leave to amend "shall be freely given when justice so requires." AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2006). When determining whether to grant leave to amend, the Court considers five factors to assess whether to grant leave to amend: "(1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of amendment; and (5) whether plaintiff has previously amended his complaint." Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 373 (9th Cir. 1990).

Having considered these factors, the Court will grant leave to amend. Most significantly, plaintiff is well within the deadline established in the Scheduling Order and the defendants do not oppose the motion. Otherwise, there are no indications of bad faith, undue delay, or prejudice to the opposing party.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that: