Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00368/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00368-9/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Karl Domm
Counter Claimant
Markus Heitkoetter
Counter Defendant
Rockwell Trading Services, LLC
Counter 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

MARKUS HEITKOETTER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

KARL DOMM,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:22-cv-0368-ADA-BAM

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Doc. 51

Currently pending before the Court is a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint 

filed by Plaintiffs Markus Heitkoetter and Rockwell Trading Services, LLC (“Plaintiffs”) on 

April 27, 2023. (Doc. 51.) Defendant Karl Domm (“Defendant”) filed a statement of nonopposition to Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the third amended complaint. (Doc. 55.) On May 2, 

2023, the Court issued a Scheduling Conference Order stating that all stipulated amendments or 

motions to amend shall be filed by August 31, 2023. (Doc. 54 at 2.)

Based on the absence of opposition, the matter is deemed submitted on the record without 

the need for oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). Having considered the unopposed 

motion and the record in this case, Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend will be GRANTED.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend was filed on April 27, 2023, consistent with the 

Case 1:22-cv-00368-KES-BAM Document 59 Filed 05/22/23 Page 1 of 3
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

deadline for file stipulations or motions to amend under the Scheduling Order. (Doc. 54 at 2.) 

Plaintiff’s motion to amend is therefore considered under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 

standard for amendment to the pleadings. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 

604 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that motion to amend filed after pretrial scheduling order deadline 

must satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16). Rule 15(a) provides that a 

court “should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 

The United States Supreme Court has stated:

[i]n 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). The intent of the rule is to “facilitate decision on the 

merits, rather than on the pleadings or technicalities.” Chudacoff v. Univ. Med. Center of S. Nev., 

649 F.3d 1143, 1152 (9th Cir. 2011). Consequently, the “policy of favoring amendments to 

pleadings should be applied with ‘extreme liberality.’” United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 

(9th Cir. 1981). 

Courts consider five factors in determining whether justice requires allowing amendment 

under Rule 15(a): “bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, 

and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.” Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 

1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted); Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 

1995) (citing Western Shoshone Nat’l Council v. Molini, 951 F.2d 200, 204 (9th Cir. 1991)). 

These factors are not of equal weight as prejudice to the opposing party has long been held to be 

the most critical factor in determining whether to grant leave to amend. Eminence Capital, LLC 

v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (“As this circuit and others have held, it is 

the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight”); Jackson v. 

Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Prejudice to the opposing party is the 

most important factor.”). Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining factors, a 

presumption exists under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend. Eminence Capital, 316

F.3d at 1052.

Case 1:22-cv-00368-KES-BAM Document 59 Filed 05/22/23 Page 2 of 3
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

Defendant has filed a statement of non-opposition to the motion to amend. (Doc. 55.)

Having considered the moving papers as well as Defendant’s non-opposition, the Court finds that 

there will be little prejudice to Defendant in permitting the amendment. See (Doc. 51-1 at 15-16) 

(noting little impact to discovery and likely no need for adjustment to the case schedule); (Doc. 

55)(noting Defendant’s non-opposition). The Court additionally finds that Plaintiffs have not 

unduly delayed in seeking to amend the complaint, the amendment is not brought in bad faith, 

and there is no indication that such amendment is futile. See (Doc. 51-1 at 14-17) (noting that: 

Plaintiffs are not causing undue delay as the new video at issue was published on April 16, 2023,

Plaintiffs are responding to the new video rather than acting in bad faith, and Plaintiffs are

asserting viable claims). Accordingly, leave to amend will be granted.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons discussed above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 51) is 

GRANTED; 

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to file the lodged Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 

51-2); and 

3. Defendant shall file an answer or other responsive pleading in compliance with the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any relevant Local Rules following electronic service of the 

Third Amended Complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 22, 2023 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00368-KES-BAM Document 59 Filed 05/22/23 Page 3 of 3