Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01250/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01250-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ford Motor Company
Defendant
Kieffe & Sons Ford
Defendant
Mojave Motors, LTD
Defendant
Donna Moreno
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONNA MORENO, an individual,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware 

corporation; MOJAVE MOTORS LTD 

d/b/a KIEFFE & SONS FORD; and DOES 

1-30, inclusive,

Defendants.

No. 1:16-cv-01250-DAD-JLT

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND; 

DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S 

MOTION TO STRIKE IS WITHDRAWN

(Doc. Nos. 11 and 12)

On August 24, 2016, plaintiff filed the complaint in this action alleging: (1) a violation of 

the Song-Beverley Consumer Warranty Act; (2) a violation of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act; 

(3) a violation of Consumers Legal Remedies Act; (4) fraudulent misrepresentation; (5) negligent 

misrepresentation; and (6) a violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200. (Doc. No. 1.) 

Plaintiff’s first, second, third, and sixth causes of action are brought against all defendants, while 

her fourth and fifth causes of action are only brought against defendant Mojave Motors, LTD 

d/b/a Kieffe & Sons Ford (“Kieffe”). (Id.) 

On September 27, 2016, defendant Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) moved to strike 

plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages against it pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(f). (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff never filed an opposition to the motion to strike. Instead, on 

Case 1:16-cv-01250-DAD-JLT Document 14 Filed 11/09/16 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

2

November 4, 2016, plaintiff lodged a first amended complaint seeking punitive damages only 

against defendant Kieffe. (Doc. No. 12 at 19.) On November 8, 2016, defendant Ford filed a 

notice of withdrawal of its motion to strike, without prejudice, “based on Plaintiff’s First 

Amended Complaint, filed on November 4, 2016, which removes the language Ford sought to 

strike.” (Doc. No. 13 at 1.) For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff will be granted leave to 

amend and defendant Ford’s motion to strike will be terminated due to its withdrawal.

LEAVE TO AMEND

“A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within: (A) 21 days after 

serving it, or (B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after 

service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), 

whichever is earlier.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Otherwise, a party must seek leave of court to 

amend a pleading or receive the opposing party’s written consent. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

Here, plaintiff’s original complaint was served on defendant Kieffe on September 2, 2016 

and on defendant Ford on September 6, 2016. (Doc. Nos. 8 and 9.) Defendant Ford filed its

motion to strike on September 27, 2016. (Doc. No. 11.) However, plaintiff did not file her first 

amended complaint until November 4, 2016. (Doc. No. 12.) Therefore, plaintiff filed her

amended complaint more than twenty-one days after service of her original complaint and more 

than twenty-one days after service of a motion under Rule 12(f). Accordingly, plaintiff may not 

amend her complaint without “the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

Leave to amend is normally sought via a noticed motion. Rule 7(b)(1) provides that “[a] 

request for a court order must be made by motion. The motion must: (A) be in writing unless 

made during a hearing or trial; (B) state with particularity the grounds for seeking the order; and 

(C) state the relief sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1). Here, although plaintiff did not file a formal 

noticed motion, she clearly seeks leave to amend in order to remove from her complaint a prayer 

for punitive damages against defendant Ford. Therefore, the court construes plaintiff’s first 

amended complaint, together with defendant Ford’s motion to strike plaintiff’s prayer for punitive 

damages against Ford, as a request by plaintiff for leave to amend her complaint. See Scott v. 

Case 1:16-cv-01250-DAD-JLT Document 14 Filed 11/09/16 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

3

Eversole Mortuary, 522 F.2d 1110, 1116, n. 8 (9th Cir. 1975) (granting leave to amend where 

plaintiff “expressly requested” to amend even though the request “was not contained in a properly 

captioned motion paper”); Edwards v. Occidental Chemical Corp., 892 F.2d 1442, 1445-46, n. 2 

(9th Cir. 1990) (finding that leave to amend should have been granted even though no formal 

request to amend was made); Brockmeier v. Solano Cty. Sheriff's Dep’t, No. 2:05-cv-02090-

MCE-KJN, 2007 WL 1521074, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 22, 2007) (construing plaintiff’s filing of 

amended complaint as a request for leave to amend under Rule 15(a) and granting the motion).

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that leave to amend pleadings “shall be 

freely given when justice so requires.” FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2). Nevertheless, leave to amend 

need not be granted where the amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad 

faith; (3) produces an undue delay in litigation; or (4) is futile. See Amerisource Bergen Corp. v. 

Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 

757 (9th Cir. 1999)). “Prejudice to the opposing party is the most important factor.” Jackson v. 

Bank of Haw., 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir.1990) (citing Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine 

Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 330–31 (1971).

There is nothing before the court to suggest bad faith on part of plaintiff or any undue 

prejudice to defendants posed by the granting of leave to amend in this instance. Indeed, 

defendant Ford specifically sought to strike the portions of the complaint that plaintiff has 

removed from her proposed first amended complaint and now seeks to withdraw the motion to 

strike based upon the filing of the proposed first amended complaint. (See Doc. No. 13.) 

Furthermore, granting leave to amend will expedite these proceedings. Under these

circumstances, the court will grant plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint and this matter will 

now proceed on plaintiff’s first amended complaint as the operative pleading. Defendant Ford’s 

motion to strike punitive damages against it has been withdrawn.

ORDER

1. Plaintiff’s motion to amend (Doc. No. 12) is granted;

2. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is now the operative pleading in this action;

3. Defendant Ford’s motion to strike (Doc. No. 11) is hereby terminated as withdrawn; and

Case 1:16-cv-01250-DAD-JLT Document 14 Filed 11/09/16 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

4

4. The hearing set for November 15, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. on defendant Ford’s motion to strike 

is vacated.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 9, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01250-DAD-JLT Document 14 Filed 11/09/16 Page 4 of 4