Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02087/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02087-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 345
Nature of Suit: Marine Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:2201dj Declaratory Judgment

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

1 1 

12 

l3 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

THERESA JONES,jndividually and 

as Executrix of the J:.state of 

LANDON JONES decease; 

ANTHONY JONE~~minor by and 

through g~ p~rent, ll"1.tRESA 

JONES; HUNTER JONliSri,a minor by 

and throu.,ghltis Qarent, ll"1.tRESA 

JONES; CHRISTINA GIBSON· 

individually and as Executrix of the 

Estate of JONATHAN GIBSON, 

decease; MAKA YLIN GIBSON, a 

minor by and thro\.!&h her parent, 

CHRISTINA GIBSON· 

ALEXANDER GIBSON a minor by 

and through his parent, CHRISTINA 

GIBSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 

OF THE NAVY; UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMEN 1 OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS· PRUDENTIAL 

INSURANCE COMPNA Y OF 

AMERICA, a New Jersey 

Corporatiol).i GIBBS & CO& INC;{ a 

New York l..Qrporation,; BA 1 t1 IRuN 

WORKS CORPORATIO~ a Maine 

Corporation· HUNTINGTuN 

INGALLS iNDUSTRIES, INC. a 

Delaware Corporation; and JANA 

V A VASSEUR, an individual, 

Defendant. 

CASE NO. 15cv2087-WQH-RBB 

ORDER 

HAYES, Judge: 27 

28 

The matter before the Court is the Motion for Leave to File Second Amended 

Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule Civil Procedure15(a)(2). (ECF No. 62). 

- I - 15cv2087·WQH-RBB 

Case 3:15-cv-02087-WQH-AGS Document 72 Filed 07/18/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 mandates that leave to amend "be freely 

2 given when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). "This policy is to be applied 

3 with extreme liberality." Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 

4 (9th Cir. 2003 ) (quotation omitted). In determining whether to allow an amendment, 

5 a court considers whether there is "undue delay," "bad faith," "undue prejudice to the 

6 opposing party," or "futility of amendment." Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 

7 (1962). <'Not all ofthe [Foman) factors merit equal weight.... [I)t is the consideration 

8 of prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight." Eminence Capital, 

9 316 F.3d at 1052 (citation omitted). "The party opposing amendment bears the burden 

10 of showing prejudice." DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 

11 1987). "Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman factors, 

12 there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend." 

13 Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. 

14 After review of the motion for leave to file the second amended complaint and 

15 all related filings, the Court concludes that Defendants have not made a sufficiently 

16 strong showing of the Foman factors to overcome the presumption under Rule 15(a) 

17 in favor of granting leave to amend. See Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. 

18 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File Proposed Second 

19 Amended Complaint (ECF No. 62) is granted. Plaintiffs shall file the proposed second 

20 amended complaint attached to the motion within ten (10) days from the date of this 

21 Order. 

22 

23 DATED: --.:..L~-=-/_ff_0_b_~ 24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

- 2 -

WILLIAM 

~~ Q. HAYES 

United States District Judge 

Ilcv2087·WQH·RBB 

Case 3:15-cv-02087-WQH-AGS Document 72 Filed 07/18/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2