Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01631/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01631-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

DAVID M. LUCAS and ERIC L.

SALERNO,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 14-cv-1631-LAB (JLB)

ORDER:

1) GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE

AMENDED COMPLAINT, and

[Docket no. 9]

2) DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT

[Docket no. 8]

vs.

JOS. A. BANK CLOTHIERS, INC.,

Defendant.

On July 9, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a putative class action complaint against Defendant

Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. asserting three claims under the California’s Unfair Competition

Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq., and one claim under California’s

Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Cal. Civil Code §§ 1750 et seq. (Docket no. 1.) 

Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

for failure to state a claim. (Docket no. 8.) On October 9, 2014, the parties filed a joint

motion to allow Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. (Docket no. 9.)

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, “a party may amend its pleading only with

the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The

“court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Id. Granting leave to amend rests

- 1 -

Case 3:14-cv-01631-LAB-JLB Document 10 Filed 10/17/14 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

in the sound discretion of the trial court. Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v.

Republic Airlines, 761 F.2d 1386, 1390 (9th Cir. 1985). This discretion must be guided by

the strong federal policy favoring the disposition of cases on the merits and permitting

amendments with “extreme liberality.” DCD Programs Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186

(9th Cir. 1987). “Five factors are taken into account to assess the propriety of a motion for

leave to amend: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of

amendment, and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.” Johnson v.

Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004). 

This is Plaintiffs’ first motion to amend and it is not driven by bad faith or with the

intent to cause undue delay or prejudice to the Defendant. Defendant joins Plaintiffs’ motion

and does not dispute the absence of delay or prejudice. (See Docket no. 9.) Accordingly,

the Court GRANTS the parties’ joint motion for leave to amend. See Johnson, 356 F.3d at

1077. Plaintiffs may file a First Amended Complaint on or before October 22, 2014. 

Plaintiffs should file it as a separate entry in the case docket, rather than leave it as an

attachment to the joint motion.

Plaintiffs’ changes to their complaint address at least some of the grounds for

dismissal in Defendant’s motion to dismiss, particularly with regard to damages and prayer

for relief. (Compare Docket no. 1 with Docket no. 9-1.) “[I]t is well-established that an

amended [pleading] supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as

non-existent.” Valadez-Lopez v. Chertoff, 656 F.3d 851, 857 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal

quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to dismiss as

moot. Defendants shall have 21 days from the date Plaintiffs file their First Amended

Complaint to answer or otherwise respond. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 15, 2014

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 -

Case 3:14-cv-01631-LAB-JLB Document 10 Filed 10/17/14 Page 2 of 2