Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04417/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04417-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KAMLESH BANGA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS,

Defendant.

 /

No. C-05-4417 MMC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT;

VACATING HEARING

(Docket No. 58)

Before the Court is plaintiff Kamlesh Banga’s motion, filed January 3, 2007, for leave

to file a second amended complaint. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), any opposition

was required to be filed no later than January 19, 2007. See Civil L.R. 7-3(a) (requiring

opposition to be “served and filed not less than 21 days before the hearing date”). To date,

no opposition has been filed. Having reviewed the papers submitted in support of the

motion, the Court finds the matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument, see

Civil L.R. 7-1(b), and hereby VACATES the February 9, 2007 hearing.

Where, as here, the complaint previously has been amended, the plaintiff may

amend the complaint “only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and

leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Generally,

leave to amend should be granted with “extreme liberality.” See Eminence Capital, LLC v.

Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003). In deciding whether justice requires

Case 3:05-cv-04417-MMC Document 66 Filed 01/29/07 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

granting leave to amend, factors to be considered include the presence or absence of

undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the moving party, repeated failure to

cure deficiencies by previous amendments, undue prejudice to the opposing party, and

futility of the proposed amendment. See Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052 (citing

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). “[T]he consideration of prejudice to the

opposing party carries the greatest weight.” Id. 

Here, defendant has not opposed the motion and, consequently, has made no

showing that it would be prejudiced if the Court were to grant the motion or that any of the

other Foman factors support denial of the motion.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file its proposed

second amended complaint forthwith. 

This order terminates Docket No. 58.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 29, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04417-MMC Document 66 Filed 01/29/07 Page 2 of 2