Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-04181/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-04181-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

NICK MILETAK,

Plaintiff,

v.

STERLING INFOSYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-04181-BLF 

ORDER SUBMITTING PLAINTIFF’S 

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE 

TO AMEND WITHOUT ORAL 

ARGUMENT; VACATING HEARING; 

AND GRANTING MOTION

[Re: ECF 21]

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.

Case 5:15-cv-04181-BLF Document 30 Filed 04/29/16 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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.

Dated: April 29, 2016

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-04181-BLF Document 30 Filed 04/29/16 Page 2 of 2