Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00881/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00881-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

1

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ANDREW WASHINGTON, JR., by and 

through his guardian ad litem, 

Alejandra Raya, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

TASER INTERNATIONL, INC., and 

DOES 1 through 50, 

 Defendants. 

______________________________/

No. Civ. S-05-0881 RRB GGH 

Memorandum of Opinion

and Order

 Before the court is Plaintiff Andrew Washington’s 

(“Plaintiff”) motion for leave to amend the operative Complaint 

to add five new defendants and several new causes of action 

against these defendants.1

 Defendant Taser International, Inc. 

(“Taser”) opposes the motion. 

 

1

 Inasmuch as the Court concludes the parties have submitted 

memoranda thoroughly discussing the law and evidence in support 

of their positions, it further concludes oral argument is 

neither necessary nor warranted with regard to the instant 

matter. See Mahon v. Credit Bureau of Placer County, Inc., 171 

Case 2:05-cv-00881-JAM-DAD Document 26 Filed 11/16/07 Page 1 of 2
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

After carefully considering the papers submitted by the 

parties in this matter, the court concludes that Taser did not 

overcome Rule 15(a)’s presumption in favor of granting leave to 

amend because it failed to sufficiently demonstrate that 

amendment: (1) would cause undue prejudice; (2) is sought in bad 

faith; (3) would produce an undue delay in litigation; or (4) is 

futile. See Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 

1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003); Amerisource Bergen Corp. v. 

Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that leave to amend the 

Complaint, pursuant to Rule 15(a), is GRANTED. Plaintiff is to 

file his amended complaint within ten (10) days of service of 

this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 ENTERED this 15th day of November, 2007. 

s/RALPH R. BEISTLINE 

 United States District Judge 

 

F.3d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 1999)(explaining that if the parties 

provided the district court with complete memoranda of the law 

and evidence in support of their positions, ordinarily oral 

argument would not be required). 

Case 2:05-cv-00881-JAM-DAD Document 26 Filed 11/16/07 Page 2 of 2