Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04762/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04762-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 26:7402 IRS: Petition to Enforce IRS Summons

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff(s), No. C 07-4762 PJH

v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND

CHARLES CATHCART, et al.,

Defendant(s).

_______________________________/

Before the court is the motion of the United States to file a first amended complaint

which adds three new defendants and clarifies several factual allegations, but adds no new

causes of action. Only the four individual defendants remain; two of which do not oppose

the motion, one of which is silent, and one of which does oppose the motion. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) requires that a plaintiff obtain either consent or leave of court to

amend its complaint once the defendant has answered, but “leave shall be freely given

when justice so requires.” See, e.g., Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d

1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990) (leave to amend granted with “extreme liberality”). Leave to

amend is thus ordinarily permitted unless the amendment is futile, untimely, would cause

undue prejudice to the defendants, or is sought by plaintiffs in bad faith or with a dilatory

motive. DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir.1987); Foman v.

Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 

The court has carefully reviewed the papers submitted by the parties. There is no

suggestion by the objecting defendant that the proposed amendment is futile, untimely, or

is sought in bad faith, and the court finds that it is not. The court is further unpersuaded by

defendant Debevc’s allegations of prejudice, because on balance, the additional time that

Case 4:07-cv-04762-PJH Document 56 Filed 04/18/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

will be required for plaintiff to take discovery as to the new defendants and the impact of

the addition of new defendants on Debevc’s ability to negotiate a settlement with plaintiff,

do not outweigh plaintiff’s right to bring all necessary parties before the court and to fully

litigate this matter given the liberality of pleading practice under Rule 15. Accordingly, the

motion to amend is GRANTED. The hearing date of April 23, 2008 is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 18, 2008 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-04762-PJH Document 56 Filed 04/18/08 Page 2 of 2