Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00238/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00238-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Libel,Assualt,Slander

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TODD ROBBEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

RICHARD JUSTIN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-00238-MCE-DAD

ORDER

Presently before the Court is a Motion to Amend Complaint filed by Plaintiff Todd 

Robben (“Plaintiff”) in the above-referenced action. Plaintiff currently alleges claims 

arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and various state laws against Defendants Richard 

Justin, Dennis Justin, BailBonds Inc. (doing business as Justin Brothers Bail Bonds), and 

Jeff Robben. He now seeks leave to amend his complaint to: (1) modify his state causes 

of action; (2) add an additional Defendant, Douglas Lewis; and (3) remove Defendant 

Jeff Robben. Plaintiff also seeks sanctions based on Defendants’ refusal to stipulate to 

the proposed amendment. No opposition has been filed. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that “leave [to amend] shall be 

freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The policy favoring 

amendments to pleadings, as evinced by Rule 15(a), is delegated to the court’s sound 

discretion and “should be applied with ‘extreme liberality.’” 

Case 2:13-cv-00238-MCE-DAD Document 36 Filed 09/16/13 Page 1 of 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

2

United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981) (citing Rosenberg Brothers & 

Co. v. Arnold, 283 F.2d 406 (9th Cir. 1960) (per curiam)). It would be an abuse of 

discretion to deny a motion to amend under Rule 15(a) where there is a lack of prejudice 

to the opposing party and the proposed amended complaint is neither futile nor sought in 

bad faith. Yakima Indian Nation v. Wash. Dept. of Revenue, 176 F.3d 1241, 1246 

(9th Cir. 1999). This case is in its early stages, and there is no indication of any undue 

prejudice, dilatory motive or bad faith that might warrant denial of Plaintiff’s request. 

Given the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend is granted.

The court will not, however, sanction Defendants for their failure to stipulate. In a 

letter from Defendants’ counsel attached as an exhibit to Plaintiff’s motion, counsel 

explained that Mr. Lewis is Defendants’ business associate, making it preferable to them 

that he be added by court order as opposed to by consent. In addition, Defendants' 

counsel argued that Plaintiff had at all times been aware of Mr. Lewis’s role in the 

underlying events and that there was no justification for not having added him as a party

in the first instance. Defendants set forth reasonable bases for refusing to stipulate. 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint (ECF Nos. 32-33) is GRANTED.1

 Plaintiff 

is directed to file the proposed Amended Complaint, as attached to the instant motion, 

not later than ten (10) days following the date this Order is electronically filed. Plaintiff’s 

request for sanctions is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 12, 2013

 1 Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, the Court orders this matter submitted 

on the briefs. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(g).

Case 2:13-cv-00238-MCE-DAD Document 36 Filed 09/16/13 Page 2 of 2