Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02107/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02107-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TANIA ZAMBRANO, an individual,

Plaintiff,

Civil No. 13cv2107-WQH-WMC

ORDER

vs.

CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES,

LLC, a Virginia Corporation;

CAPITAL ONE, N.A., a business

entity of unknown form; SAFECO

INSURANCE COMPANY OF

AMERICA, a New Hampshire

Corporation; and DOES 1 through 75,

inclusive, 

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

On January 21, 2014, the Court granted the motion to dismiss filed by

Defendants, dismissed the Complaint without prejudice, and permitted Plaintiff to file

a motion for leave to file a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 12). 

On February 20, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint,

accompanied by a proposed first amended complaint. (ECF No. 13). Plaintiff states

that the Complaint “was not clearly enough set forth,” and that “even more facts

supporting liability have been discovered.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff states that “the First

Amended Complaint ... makes clear that nothing ... relating to the inspection or report

was given [to Plaintiff] prior to sale.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff states that the Complaint

“fail[ed] to highlight what is the most significant damage claim.” Id. at 3. 

- 1 - 13cv2107-WQH-DHB

Case 3:13-cv-02107-WQH-JLB Document 17 Filed 05/02/14 Page 1 of 3
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

On March 10, 2014, Defendants filed an opposition to the Motion for Leave to

Amend Complaint. (ECF No. 14). Defendants contend that “[a]mendment is futile here

based on the pleadings in the Complaint, the prior rulings of this Court dismissing it,

and the specific facts (including those demonstrated by its exhibits) now pleaded in the

Proposed FAC. Between them, there simply is no ability to plead facts sufficient to

state a claim.” Id. at 7. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 mandates that leave to amend “be freely given

when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “This policy is to be applied with

extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th

Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted). In determining whether to allow an amendment, a court

considers whether there is “undue delay,” “bad faith,” “undue prejudice to the opposing

party,” or “futility of amendment.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). “Not

all of the [Foman] factors merit equal weight.... [I]t is the consideration of prejudice

to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight.” Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at

1052 (citation omitted). “The party opposing amendment bears the burden of showing

prejudice.” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987). 

“Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman factors, there

exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Eminence

Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052.

After review of the motion, the proposed first amended complaint, and the filings

of the parties, the Court concludes that Defendants have not made a sufficiently strong

showing of the Foman factors to overcome the presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor

of granting leave to amend. See Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. The Court will

defer consideration of any challenge to the merits of the proposed first amended

complaint until after the amended pleading is filed. See Netbula v. Distinct Corp., 212

F.R.D. 534, 539 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (“Ordinarily, courts will defer consideration of the

challenges to the merits of a proposed amended pleading until after leave to amend is

granted and the amended pleading is filed.”). 

- 2 - 13cv2107-WQH-DHB

Case 3:13-cv-02107-WQH-JLB Document 17 Filed 05/02/14 Page 2 of 3
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

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is

GRANTED. (ECF No. 13). Plaintiff shall file the proposed first amended complaint

attached to the motion within ten (10) days of the date of this Order. 

DATED: May 2, 2014

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - 13cv2107-WQH-DHB

Case 3:13-cv-02107-WQH-JLB Document 17 Filed 05/02/14 Page 3 of 3