Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00483/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00483-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

- 1 - 07cv483 WQH (JMA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK KRAVIS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07cv483 WQH (JMA)

ORDER

vs.

FRANKLIN FUELING SYSTEMS, INC.,

et al.,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

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

Complaint (Doc. # 51) filed by Plaintiff Mark Kravis, Inc. 

On July 18, 2008, Plaintiff filed the Motion for Leave to File Second Amended

Complaint. Plaintiff seeks to amend his Complaint to add a separate cause of action for

violation of the Wholesale Act, to correct procedural errors and to clarify the amount of

damages sought. Plaintiff contends that adding a cause of action based on the Wholesale

Act will provide Plaintiff with additional remedies, but does not complicate the issues in

the case. Plaintiff contends that the “other proposed changes to the operative complaint are

non-critical in nature and merely correct procedural errors and clarify the amount of

damages sought by Plaintiff as has been revealed in discovery.” Mot. to Amend, p. 2. 

On August 4, 2008, Defendants filed a notice of non-opposition (Doc. # 56). 

Defendants state: “Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second

Amended Complaint.” Non-Opposition, p. 1-2. 

Case 3:07-cv-00483-WQH-JMA Document 58 Filed 08/20/08 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 - 07cv483 WQH (JMA)

Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that leave to amend “be

freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). This policy is applied with

“extraordinary liberality.” Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079

(9th Cir. 1990). Once an answer to the complaint has been filed, as is the case here, courts

may deny leave to amend where the proposed amendment would be futile, where it is

sought in bad faith, where it will create undue delay, or where “undue prejudice to the

opposing party will result.” Howey v. United States, 481 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1973);

see also Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992); Saul v.

United States, 928 F.2d 829, 843 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Having reviewed the Motion and the supporting documents, and having a notice of

non-opposition from Defendants, the Court GRANTS the Motion for Leave to File Second

Amended Complaint (Doc. # 51). Plaintiff shall file a Second Amended Complaint that

adds an additional cause of action based on the Wholesale Act, corrects procedural errors

and clarifies the amount of damages sought no later than Monday, September 22, 2008. 

DATED: August 20, 2008

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00483-WQH-JMA Document 58 Filed 08/20/08 Page 2 of 2