Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-01971/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-01971-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Stockholders Suits

---

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

Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HENRY MATOZA,

Plaintiff,

v.

THOR INDUSTRIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-01971-MMC 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT; VACATING 

HEARING

Re: Dkt. No. 39

Before the Court is plaintiff Henry Matoza’s (“Matoza”) motion, filed June 2, 2017, 

for leave to file a proposed First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) pursuant to Rule 15 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On June 6, 2017, defendant Thor Industries, Inc. 

(“Thor”) filed a statement of non-opposition. The only other remaining defendant, 

Automobile Protection Corporation (“APCO”),1has not filed a response. Having 

considered the papers filed in support of the motion, as well as Thor’s statement of nonopposition thereto, the Court deems the matter suitable for decision on the parties’ 

respective written submissions, VACATES the hearing scheduled for July 28, 2017, and 

rules as follows.

Under Rule 15(a), “[a] party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course” 

within “21 days after serving it” or, “if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading 

is required, within 21 days after service of a responsive pleading.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

15(a)(1). Otherwise, a party may amend “only with the opposing party’s written consent 

 

1 On May 31, 2017, Matoza voluntarily dismissed defendants Thor Motor Coach, 

Inc. and Ford Motor Company.

Case 3:17-cv-01971-MMC Document 43 Filed 06/28/17 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

or the court’s leave.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Because Matoza’s motion was filed

more than 21 days after he was served with a responsive pleading (see Def. APCO’s 

Mot. Dismiss, filed May 5, 2017) and he has not procured the written consent of both 

defendants, he cannot file his proposed FAC absent court approval. 

Under Rule 15, the court should “freely give” leave to amend “when justice so 

requires.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). In determining whether to allow an amended 

pleading, a district court considers four factors: “bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the 

opposing party, and futility of amendment.” See DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 

F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir.1987).

In this instance, Matoza seeks to amend his complaint in order to “drop two 

defendants,” name “five . . . DOE defendants,” and “conform[] the complaint to new facts 

that have emerged in [his] case.” (See Pl.’s Mot., filed June 2, 2017, at 1:22-2:1.) 

As Thor does not oppose the proposed amendments and APCO has neither filed 

an opposition nor otherwise asserted any potential for undue prejudice, the Court, given 

the nature of the amendments and the early stage of the proceedings, finds it appropriate 

to grant the motion. See Howey v. U.S., 481 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1973) (“Unless 

undue prejudice to the opposing party will result, a trial judge should ordinarily permit a 

party to amend its complaint.”) 

Accordingly, Matoza’s motion is hereby GRANTED. Matoza shall file his FAC no 

later than July 5, 2017. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 28, 2017

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-01971-MMC Document 43 Filed 06/28/17 Page 2 of 2