Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02521/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02521-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection 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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAJID PAJOUH,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13cv2521-WQH-JLB

Order

vs.

CALIFORNIA BUSINESS BUREAU,

INC.,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

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

Complaint filed by Plaintiff Majid Pajouh. (ECF No. 26). 

I. Background

On October 18, 2013, Plaintiff Majid Pajouh, then represented by counsel,

commenced this action by filing the Complaint. (ECF No. 1). On March 24, 2014,

Plaintiff’s counsel, Crosby Connolly of the law firm Hyde & Swigart, filed an ex parte

motion to withdraw as counsel. (ECF No. 9). On April 7, 2014, District Judge James

Lorenz granted the motion to withdraw as counsel. (ECF No. 10). On June 12, 2014,

Magistrate Judge Jill Burkhardt issued a pretrial scheduling order, providing that “[a]ny

motion to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional pleadings shall

be filed on or before July 15, 2014.” (ECF No. 16 at 1). On July 25, 2014, Plaintiff,

proceeding pro se, filed a document titled First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 23). 

On July 29, 2014, Judge Lorenz noted that “Plaintiff was not entitled to file an amended

- 1 - 13cv2521-WQH-JLB

Case 3:13-cv-02521-WQH-JLB Document 64 Filed 10/03/14 Page 1 of 4
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

complaint” and ordered that “Plaintiff must file a motion for leave to amend on or

before July 31, 2014 or the hearing will be vacated.” (ECF No. 24). On July 29, 2014,

Judge Lorenz recused himself from this case, and the case was reassigned to this Court. 

(ECF No. 25). 

On July 30, 2014, Plaintiff filed the Motion for Leave to File First Amended

Complaint. (ECF No. 26). On August 29, 2014, Defendant California Business

Bureau, Inc. filed an opposition, accompanied by the Declaration of Paul C. Bauducco

(“Bauducco Decl.”). (ECF Nos. 32-33). On September 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed a reply. 

(ECF No. 38). 

II. Contentions of the Parties

Plaintiff asserts that the additional claims he wishes to assert in a first amended

complaint could have been brought in the Complaint, but his former counsel refused to

do so. Plaintiff also asserts that he made his best efforts to comply with Magistrate

Judge Jill Burkhardt’s scheduling order by filing a First Amended Complaint on July

15, 2014, the deadline set by Magistrate Judge Jill Burkhardt for “[a]ny motion to join

other parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional pleadings....” (ECF No. 16

at 1). Plaintiff asserts that he was unaware that he had to file a motion for leave to

amend, and thought he could file a first amended complaint. Plaintiff requests leave to

add two new claims: (1) violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15

U.S.C. section 1681-1681u, and (2) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law

(“UCL”), California Business and Professions Code section 17200. 

Defendant contends that the Magistrate Judge’s scheduling order must be

modified for “good cause” in order to allow amendment because Plaintiff’s motion was

filed after the July 15, 2014 deadline in the scheduling order. (ECF No. 32 at 5). 

Defendant asserts that Plaintiff was aware that he needed to file a motion for leave to

amend before July 15, 2014 because the topic was discussed at length during a case

management conference before the Magistrate Judge. Defendant contends that it will

be “severely prejudiced” if the motion is granted because the September 30, 2014

- 2 - 13cv2521-WQH-JLB

Case 3:13-cv-02521-WQH-JLB Document 64 Filed 10/03/14 Page 2 of 4
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

discovery cut-off and other deadlines will need to be continued, and Defendant, unlike

Plaintiff, is incurring attorneys’ fees. Id. at 6. 

III. Discussion

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 determining whether to allow an amendment, a court

considers whether there is “undue delay,” “bad faith,” “undue prejudice to the opposing

party,” or “futility of amendment.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). “Not

all of the [Foman] factors merit equal weight.... [I]t is the consideration of prejudice

to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight.” Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at

1052 (citation 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.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) provides that a pretrial scheduling order

“may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent. Fed. R. Civ. P.

16(b)(4). 

In this case, Judge Lorenz amended the Magistrate Judge’s scheduling order by

extending Plaintiff’s deadline from July 15, 2014 to July 30, 2014. (ECF No. 24). The

Court concludes that it need not modify any scheduling in order to grant Plaintiff leave

to amend.1

After review of the motion, the proposed first amended complaint, and the filings

of the parties, the Court concludes that Defendants have not made a sufficiently strong

1

 The Court nevertheless finds good cause exists for an extension of Plaintiff’s

deadline to file a motion for leave to amend the complaint. Plaintiff’s counsel withdrew on April 7, 2014, Plaintiff is representing himself, and Plaintiff attempted to comply with the Magistrate Judge’s July 15, 2014 deadline by filing a “First Amended Complaint” on that date. 

- 3 - 13cv2521-WQH-JLB

Case 3:13-cv-02521-WQH-JLB Document 64 Filed 10/03/14 Page 3 of 4
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

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

of granting leave to amend. See Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. Although the

discovery deadline was September 30, 2014, Defendant has been aware of Plaintiff’s

intention to file a first amended complaint since the March 18, 2014 early neutral

evaluation conference. (ECF No. 32 at 4). Plaintiff also filed the “First Amended

Complaint” on July 15, 2014 and the present motion on July 30, 2014, well before the

discovery deadline. (ECF No. 23). The Court will defer consideration of any challenge

to the merits of the proposed first amended complaint until after the amended pleading

is filed. See Netbula v. Distinct Corp., 212 F.R.D. 534, 539 (N.D. Cal. 2003)

(“Ordinarily, courts will defer consideration of the challenges to the merits of a

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

pleading is filed.”). 

IV. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File First Amended

Complaint is GRANTED. (ECF No. 26). The Clerk of the Court shall strike the

document titled “First Amended Complaint.” (ECF No. 23). Plaintiff shall file the First

Amended Complaint, as set forth in Exhibit A of the Motion for Leave to File First

Amended Complaint (ECF No. 26-3), with ten (10) days from the date this Order is

filed. Defendants shall respond to the First Amended Complaint within fourteen (14)

days from the date the First Amended Complaint is re-filed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(3). 

DATED: October 3, 2014

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 4 - 13cv2521-WQH-JLB

Case 3:13-cv-02521-WQH-JLB Document 64 Filed 10/03/14 Page 4 of 4