Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00172/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00172-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
BASF Corporation
Defendant
Gregory Willems
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – FRESNO DIVISION

GREGORY WILLEMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

BASF CORPORATION,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00172-LJO-SKO

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO

FILE FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT

(Docket No. 17)

On June 25, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his complaint pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 15(a). Plaintiff proposes to amend the complaint to include a "Fourth Cause of

Action for Intentional Misrepresentation" based upon information gathered during discovery. 

Plaintiff attached a copy of his proposed First Amended Complaint ("FAC") to his motion as

Exhibit A. On July 15, 2010, Defendant filed a notice of non-opposition in response to Plaintiff's

motion. 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") 15(a)(1), "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." However, in all other

cases, "a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's

1

Case 1:10-cv-00172-LJO-MJS Document 21 Filed 07/20/10 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

leave." Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 15(a)(2). The FRCP instructs that "[t]he court should freely give leave [to

amend] when justice so requires." Id. 

Here, Plaintiff may not amend his complaint as a matter of right because Defendant answered

the complaint on March 12, 2010. Instead, Plaintiff requests leave to file a FAC pursuant to Rule

15(a)(2) to plead an additional cause of action based upon information he allegedly gained through

discovery. While Defendant does not concede the accurateness or truth of the facts Plaintiff wishes

to plead in his amended complaint, Defendant does not oppose Plaintiff's request to file an amended

complaint. Additionally, Plaintiff timely notified the Court and Defendant in the parties' joint

scheduling report filed on June 1, 2010, that he intended to move to amend the complaint to add a

cause of action for misrepresentation after some initial discovery was obtained. In its Scheduling

Order of June 10, 2010, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint on or before

August 16, 2010. In light of Defendant's non-opposition, the Court's June 10, 2010, Scheduling

Order allowing amendment, and the Court's review of the proposed FAC, Plaintiff's request for leave

to amend the complaint as indicated will be granted. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Plaintiff's motion seeking leave to file an amended complaint is GRANTED; and

2. In light of Defendant's non-opposition, the hearing in this matter currentlyset for July

30, 2010, is hereby VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 19, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:10-cv-00172-LJO-MJS Document 21 Filed 07/20/10 Page 2 of 2