Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01931/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01931-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

AMALRAJ GNANASIGAMANI, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SGS TESTCOM, INC., 

Defendant. 

No. 2:15-cv-01931-KJM-EFB 

ORDER 

This matter is before the court on plaintiff Amalraj Gnanasigamani’s motion to file 

a First Amended Complaint to add a cause of action for discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. 

ECF No. 13 at 4. Defendants have filed a notice of non-opposition to plaintiff’s motion. ECF 

No. 16. For reasons explained below, the court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion. 

Rule 15 provides that leave to amend “shall be freely given when justice so 

requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The Ninth Circuit has held that “‘[t]his policy is to be applied 

with extreme liberality.’” Eminence Capital, L.L.C. v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th 

Cir. 2003) (quoting Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 

2001)). Leave to amend is not automatic, however. The Ninth Circuit considers a motion for 

leave to amend under five factors: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility 

of amendment, and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint. Nunes v. 

Case 2:15-cv-01931-KJM-EFB Document 18 Filed 06/10/16 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

Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805, 808 (9th Cir. 2004). The Ninth Circuit has held that “it is the 

consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight.” Eminence 

Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. Further, the Ninth Circuit “differentiate[s] between pleadings 

attempting to amend claims from those seeking to amend parties.” Union Pac. R. Co. v. Nevada 

Power Co., 950 F.2d 1429, 1432 (9th Cir. 1991) (emphasis in original). 

Here, the plaintiff filed the original complaint in Sacramento County Superior 

Court and defendant removed the case to this court. ECF No. 1. At the time of the parties’ pretrial scheduling conference, plaintiff advised defendant that plaintiff would seek to amend the 

complaint to add a claim of discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Defendants have not opposed 

the motion, the motion does not stem from bad faith, and the motion would not cause undue 

delay. Additionally, the motion is not prejudicial or futile, for defendants were informed in 

advance of the amendment, and plaintiff has pleaded allegations to support the new claim. 

Finally, this is plaintiff’s first amendment, so this factor also favors amendment in this instance. 

Accordingly, the court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion to file a first amended 

complaint. Plaintiff shall file the proposed First Amended Complaint as a separate document on 

the court’s docket of this case within seven (7) days. 

This order resolves ECF No. 13. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 9, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-01931-KJM-EFB Document 18 Filed 06/10/16 Page 2 of 2