Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00052/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00052-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

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

LANCE W. LILLIS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12cv0052-GPC-KSC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

[DKT. NO. 108]

vs.

APRIA HEALTHCARE,

Defendant.

For the reasons below, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for leave

to file a second amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 108.)

DISCUSSION

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended

complaint. (Dkt. No. 108.) Generally, leave to amend should be freely granted and

leave should be denied only on a clear showing that competing considerations

outweigh the general policy. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 15(a). Factors that could support

denial of leave to amend include futility of the proposed amendment. Millar v. Bay

Area Rapid Transit Dist., 236 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1113 (N.D. Cal. 2002). Here,

Plaintiff seeks leave to amend his first amended complaint to “add additional

parties, legal theories, and facts that came in light during the discovery process.”

(Dkt. No. 108 at 2.) Upon review, the Court finds that the proposed second

amended complaint is an exact duplication of the first amended complaint. (See

- 1 - 12cv0052-GPC-KSC

Case 3:12-cv-00052-GPC-KSC Document 111 Filed 03/25/13 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

Dkt. No. 108, Exhibit A “Proposed Second Amended Complaint.”) The proposed

second amended complaint does not add any new defendants, assert any new facts,

or allege any new causes of action. Accordingly, the Court finds the proposed

second amended complaint is futile. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the first

amended complaint is therefore DENIED. 

SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 25, 2013

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 2 - 12cv0052-GPC-KSC

Case 3:12-cv-00052-GPC-KSC Document 111 Filed 03/25/13 Page 2 of 2