Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02308/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02308-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 47:0227(b)(3) Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991

---

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

BRIAN LIVESAY,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 15cv2308 DMS (AGS)

ORDER (1) GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE A THIRD

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND (2)

DENYING AS MOOT

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS

v.

BBVA COMPASS BANCSHARES,

INC.,

Defendant.

This case comes before the Court on Defendant’s motion to dismiss and

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint. Both motions are fully

briefed and ready for disposition. For the reasons set out below, Plaintiff’s motion is

granted and Defendant’s motion is denied as moot. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 provides that leave to amend a party’s

pleading “shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). In

accordance with this Rule, the Supreme Court has stated, 

in the absence of any apparent or declared reason -- such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to

the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of

amendment, etc. -- the leave sought should, as the rules require, be “freely given.” 

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Of these factors, the Ninth Circuit has

stated “it is the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest

- 1 - 15cv2308

Case 3:15-cv-02308-DMS-AGS Document 51 Filed 11/21/16 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

weight.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). 

The party opposing the amendment bears the burden of showing prejudice. DCD

Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186-87 (9th Cir. 1987). Absent prejudice, or

a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman factors, there exists a presumption

under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend. Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at

1052. 

Here, Defendant does not assert that it would be prejudiced if Plaintiff is granted

leave to file the Third Amended Complaint. Rather, the only argument it raises is that

the proposed amendment would be futile. The Court disagrees. 

In a recent order, this Court addressed the standing issues Defendant raises in its

motion to dismiss. (See Garcia v. Caine & Weiner Co., Case No. 16cv0850, Docket

No. 21.) Pursuant to that Order, allowing Plaintiff to file the Proposed Third Amended

Complaint would not be futile. Indeed, the amendment would address the alleged

standing deficiencies. Absent a showing that any of the other factors warrant denial of

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend, that motion is granted. In light of that ruling,

Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is denied as

moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 21, 2016

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

- 2 - 15cv2308

Case 3:15-cv-02308-DMS-AGS Document 51 Filed 11/21/16 Page 2 of 2