Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02361/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02361-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

-1- 06cv2361

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EMERALD BAY FUNDING, INC., a

California corporation; EMERALD BAY

FINANCIAL, INC., a California

corporation,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 06cv2361 WGH (WMc)

ORDER

(Doc. # 44)

vs.

SHAWN HUDSPETH; DEVIN

STODDARD; THE SOLUTION FUND, a

California corporation; SOLUTION

FUNDING, INC., a California

corporation; SOLUTION FINANCIAL,

INC., a California corporation; DOES 1

through 50, inclusive,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Motion to Amend Complaint to Substitute Wesley

Hoaglund for Defendant Doe 1 (Doc. # 44) filed by Plaintiffs on May 16, 2007. Plaintiffs

move the Court for an order permitting an amendment to the First Amended Complaint (Doc.

# 21) to substitute Wesley Hoaglund in place of Defendant Doe 1, a fictitiously named

defendant. Plaintiffs allege that they learned during discovery “that Wesley Hoaglund was

involved as one of the principals in the formation, ownership, and management of the three

corporate defendants coinciding with [Defendant Shawn] Hudspeth’s departure from plaintiffs’

employ.” (Mem. Supp. Mot. Amend Compl. at 4.) In light of his alleged “substantial

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WQH-WMC Document 45 Filed 07/31/07 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

-2- 06cv2361

involvement” in some of the activities alleged in the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs

request leave to amend to substitute Wesley Hoaglund in place of Defendant Doe 1 pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). (Id. at 5.) Defendants have not filed an opposition

to Plaintiffs’ Motion.

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

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

“extraordinary liberality.” Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079

(9th Cir. 1990). Once an answer to the complaint has been filed, as is the case here, courts

may deny leave to amend where the proposed amendment would be futile, where it is sought

in bad faith, where it will create undue delay, or where “undue prejudice to the opposing party

will result.” Howey v. United States, 481 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1973); see also Johnson

v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992); Saul v. United States, 928

F.2d 829, 843 (9th Cir. 1991). In federal question cases, such as this one, natural persons may

be substituted in place of fictional Doe defendants by way of amendment pursuant to Rule 15.

See Motley v. Parks, 198 F.R.D. 532, 533 (C.D. Cal. 2000).

Having reviewed the Motion and the supporting documents, and having received no

opposition from Defendants, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Complaint to

Substitute Wesley Hoaglund for Defendant Doe 1 (Doc. # 44). Plaintiffs shall file a second

amended complaint which substitutes Wesley Hoaglund for Defendant Doe 1 no later than

August 20, 2007.

DATED: July 31, 2007

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WQH-WMC Document 45 Filed 07/31/07 Page 2 of 2