Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02246/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02246-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332nr Diversity-Notice of Removal

---

1

17cv2246-MMA (BLM)

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

KATHLEEN HOLT, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

NOBLE HOUSE HOTELS & RESORT, 

LTD; and DOES 1 TO 25,

Defendants.

Case No.: 17cv2246-MMA (BLM)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

[Doc. No. 29]

On April 12, 2018, Plaintiff Kathleen Holt (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion for leave to 

file an amended complaint. Doc. No. 29-1 (“Mtn.”). On April 27, 2018, Defendant 

Noble House Hotels & Resort, Ltd. (“Noble House”) filed a notice of non-opposition. 

Doc. No. 30. The Court, in its discretion, decides the matters on the papers submitted 

and without oral argument, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1. For the following 

reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend to file an amended 

complaint.

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed this 

putative class action in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego against 

Noble House alleging causes of action for violations of California’s False Advertising 

Case 3:17-cv-02246-MMA-BLM Document 33 Filed 04/30/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

17cv2246-MMA (BLM)

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

Law (“FAL”), California Business and Professions Code sections 17500, et seq.; 

California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), California Business and Professions Code 

sections 17200, et seq.; and California’s Consumers Legal Remedy Act (“CLRA”), 

California Business and Professions Code sections 1750, et seq. Doc. No. 1-3. On 

November 3, 2017, Noble House removed this action to this Court. Doc. No. 1. On 

February 6, 2018, Noble House answered Plaintiff’s Complaint. Doc. No. 15. On March 

8, 2018, the parties attended a telephonic Early Neutral Evaluation Conference and Case 

Management Conference with Judge Major, and the Court promptly issued a scheduling 

order thereafter. Doc. Nos. 21, 22. The Court set April 13, 2018 as the deadline to file 

any motion to amend the pleadings. Doc. No. 22. Plaintiff timely filed the instant 

motion. See Mtn.

LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party may 

amend its complaint (i) within 21 days after serving it; (ii) within 21 days after a 

responsive pleading has been served; or (iii) with the opposing party’s written consent or 

leave of court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The United States Supreme Court has stated:

If the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff may be a 

proper subject of relief, he ought to be afforded an opportunity to test his claim 

on the merits. 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 amendment, etc. – the leave sought should, as the rules require, be 

‘freely given.’

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff seeks to amend her Complaint by adding relief for actual damages under 

the CLRA and “bolstering factual allegations.” Mtn. at 2, 8. She contends amending her 

Complaint will not prejudice Noble House, was timely made in good faith, and is not 

futile. Id. at 5-7. Noble House does not oppose the motion, although it notes a concern 

Case 3:17-cv-02246-MMA-BLM Document 33 Filed 04/30/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

17cv2246-MMA (BLM)

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

regarding futility in light of the fact that the current Complaint has already survived a 

motion to dismiss. Doc. No. 30 at 2-3.

Upon review of the moving papers and examining the Foman factors, the Court 

finds that leave to amend is appropriate. This is Plaintiff’s first request to amend, she has 

done so by the deadline set by the Court, and the Court finds no evidence that Plaintiff is 

moving to amend in bad faith or that Noble House will suffer undue prejudice by the 

proposed amendment. See Mtn.; see also Docket. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for leave to 

amend. Plaintiff must file a signed First Amended Complaint on or before May 2, 2018.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 30, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-02246-MMA-BLM Document 33 Filed 04/30/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3