Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01860/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01860-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

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

SYDNEY FRANCIS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 16cv1860-WQH-WVG

ORDER

v.

OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY;

TARAS LISKEVYCH; and DOES 1

through 100, inclusive,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. (ECF

No. 24). 

I. Background 

On July 21, 2017, Plaintiff Sydney Francis initiated this action by filing a

complaint against Defendants Oregon State University and Taras Liskevych alleging

causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) fraud/deceit, (3) fraud/bad faith, (4)

intentional infliction of emotional distress, (5) civil conspiracy, and (6) punitive

damages. (ECF No. 1). 

On June 1, 2017 the Court issued an order dismissing the complaint in its

entirety. (ECF No. 23). The Court dismissed certain causes of action for failure to state

a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). However, Plaintiff’s causes of action for “frauddeceit” and “fraud-bad faith” were dismissed because they were contained on a page of

the complaint that was not properly served upon the Defendants. Id. at 13-14. The

order stated in part: 

- 1 - 16cv1860-WQH-WVG

Case 3:16-cv-01860-WQH-WVG Document 26 Filed 09/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
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

The complaint is dismissed in its entirety without prejudice as to both

Defendant Oregon State University and Defendant Taras Liskevych. (ECF

No. 1). Any motion to file an amended complaint shall be filed within 60 days of the date this Order is filed pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1. If no motion to file an amended complaint is filed, the Clerk of Court shall close

the case.

(ECF No. 23).

On July 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. (ECF

No. 24). Defendant Oregon State University filed a response in opposition. (ECF No.

25). The docket reflects that Plaintiff has not filed a reply. 

II. Discussion 

Plaintiff contends that leave to amend should be granted because there is no

undue delay or prejudice to Defendants. (ECF No. 24-1). Plaintiff contends that her

amended complaint would not be futile because she “has substantial claims against the

Defendants for tortious conduct independent and apart from the breach of contract

claim.” Id. at 3. 

Defendant contends that leave to amend should be denied because the addition

of the previously missing page of the complaint does not cure the deficiencies of the

complaint. (ECF No. 25 at 2). Defendant contends that Plaintiff fails to allege

sufficient facts to allege a cognizable claim for fraud under Oregon or California law. 

Id. at 3-5. Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s fraud claims are barred by the statute of

limitations under Oregon law. Id. at 5-6. 

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

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

extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th

Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted). In Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962), the Supreme

Court offered several factors for district courts to consider in deciding whether to grant

a motion to amend under Rule 15(a):

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

- 2 - 16cv1860-WQH-WVG

Case 3:16-cv-01860-WQH-WVG Document 26 Filed 09/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
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

amendment, etc. – the leave sought should, as the rules require, be “freely given.” Foman, 371 U.S. at 182; see also Smith v. Pac. Prop. Dev. Co., 358 F.3d 1097, 1101

(9th Cir. 2004). “Not all of the [Foman] factors merit equal weight. As this circuit and

others have held, it is the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries

the greatest weight.” Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052 (citations omitted). “The

party opposing amendment bears the burden of showing prejudice.” DCD Programs,

Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (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.

The Court concludes that Defendant has not made a sufficiently strong showing

of the Foman factors to overcome the presumption of Rule 15(a) in favor of granting

leave to amend. See Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. The Court will defer

consideration of any challenge to the merits of the proposed amended complaint until

after the amended pleading is filed. See Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Toshiba Corp.,

No. C-04-4708, 2006 WL 3093812, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2006) (“In view of Rule

15(a)’s permissive standard, courts ordinarily defer consideration of challenges to the

merits of a proposed amended pleading until after leave to amend is granted and the

amended pleading is filed.”).

III. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint

(ECF No. 24) is granted. No later than fourteen (14) days from the date this order is

issued, Plaintiff may file the proposed first amended complaint which is attached to the

motion. If Plaintiff does not file the first amended complaint within fourteen days, the

Court will order the Clerk of Court to close this case. 

DATED: September 11, 2017

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - 16cv1860-WQH-WVG

Case 3:16-cv-01860-WQH-WVG Document 26 Filed 09/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3