Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01662/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01662-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Taylor Howard
Plaintiff
Kaiser Permanente Healthlink Alliance, LLC
Defendant

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 

TAYLOR HOWARD, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

KAISER PERMANENTE HEALTHLINK 

ALLIANCE, LLC; and DOES 1-10, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-CV-01662-KJM-KJN 

ORDER 

Taylor Howard alleges Kaiser Permanente Healthlink Alliance, LLC (Kaiser) sent 

him unauthorized phone calls in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 

47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. See First Am. Compl., ECF No. 8. Despite the completion of service on 

Kaiser and Howard’s efforts to contact defense counsel, Kaiser has not appeared. Howard seeks 

leave to amend his complaint to join Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., whom he represents is 

Kaiser’s parent corporation, and several other subsidiaries of Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. 

See Mot. Am., ECF No. 11. As no other party has appeared, the motion is not opposed. The 

matter is hereby SUBMITTED for decision without a hearing. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) governs amendments to the pleadings. 

That section provides, “The court should freely give [leave to amend] when justice so requires,” 

Case 2:15-cv-01662-KJM-KJN Document 16 Filed 11/17/15 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

and the Ninth Circuit has “stressed Rule 15’s policy of favoring amendments.” Ascon Props., 

Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989); accord Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. 

Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1058 (9th Cir. 2011). “In exercising its discretion 

[regarding granting or denying leave to amend] ‘a court must be guided by the underlying 

purpose of Rule 15ʊto facilitate decision on the merits rather than on the pleadings or 

technicalities.’” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987) (quoting 

United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981)). However, “the liberality in granting 

leave to amend is subject to several limitations. Leave need not be granted where the amendment 

of the complaint would cause the opposing party undue prejudice, is sought in bad faith, 

constitutes an exercise in futility, or creates undue delay.” Cafasso, 637 F.3d at 1058. 

Here, the court is aware of no prejudice, bad faith, or delay associated with 

Howard’s request for leave to amend. No scheduling conferences, discovery, motion hearing, or 

other deadlines have been set because no other party has appeared. And at this stage, the court 

cannot conclude an amendment would be futile. 

The motion is GRANTED. The second amended complaint shall be filed within 

fourteen days of the date this order is filed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: November 17, 2015. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:15-cv-01662-KJM-KJN Document 16 Filed 11/17/15 Page 2 of 2