Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00185/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00185-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

George H. Larson, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

United Natural Foods West , Inc.; and

Sysco Arizona, Inc.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-185-PHX-DGC

ORDER

On July 15, 2010, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint that adds Sysco Arizona, Inc.

as a Defendant. Doc. 35. Defendant United Natural Foods West, Inc. has filed a motion to

strike the complaint on the ground that it was filed without consent or leave of Court as

required by Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. 36. Plaintiff claims that

based on discussions at the case management conference held on June 9, 2010 (Doc. 32), he

reasonably believed that Defendant consented to the filing of the amended complaint.

Doc. 38. He requests in the alternative leave of Court to file the complaint. Id.

Rule 15 makes clear that the Court “should freely give leave [to amend] when justice

so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The policy in favor of leave to amend must not only

be heeded by the Court, see Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962), it must be applied

with extreme liberality, see Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708,

880 (9th Cir. 2001). This liberality “is not dependent on whether the amendment will add

causes of action or parties.” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir.

1987).

Case 2:10-cv-00185-DGC Document 46 Filed 08/26/10 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 -

Pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2), and in the interest of justice, the Court will grant Plaintiff

leave to file the amended complaint (Doc. 35). Defendant’s motion to strike (Doc. 36) will

be denied.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff is granted leave to file his amended complaint (Doc. 35).

2. Defendant’s motion to strike (Doc. 36) is denied.

DATED this 25th day of August, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00185-DGC Document 46 Filed 08/26/10 Page 2 of 2