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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARRYANNE MOSS,

Plaintiff,

v.

INFINITY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-03456-JSC 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 

COMPLAINT TO ADD DEFENDANTS

Re: Dkt. No. 62

This matter involves insurance claims arising from an automobile collision. Plaintiff 

Arryanne Moss (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against Defendants Infinity Insurance Company, 

Automobile Warranty Services Insurance Company, Lithia Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge of Santa Rosa, 

and Charlotte Toth (collectively, “Defendants”). Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s 

motion for leave to amend the complaint to add an additional defendant, Insurance Answer Center, 

Inc. (“IAC”). (Dkt. No. 62.) Defendants have not opposed Plaintiff’s motion. After carefully 

considering the arguments and briefing submitted, the Court concludes that oral argument is 

unnecessary, see Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 provides that leave to amend the pleadings before trial 

should be given freely “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Leave to amend is to 

be granted with “extreme liberality.” Sonoma Cty. Ass’n of Retired Employees v. Sonoma Cty.,

708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013). In determining whether justice requires leave to amend, 

courts consider the five factors initially identified in Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962): 

“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). “[I]t is the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest 

Case 3:17-cv-00115-JSC Document 67 Filed 08/05/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

weight.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation 

omitted). The decision to grant or deny a request for leave to amend rests in the discretion of the 

trial court. See California ex rel. California Dep’t of Toxic Substances Control v. Neville Chem. 

Co., 358 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir. 2004).

None of the five Foman factors weighs against granting Plaintiff leave to amend her 

complaint as requested. The case is in its very early stages—no parties have answered yet, with 

the Court having recently dismissed Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) with leave to 

amend (see Dkt. No. 65), and no pretrial or trial schedule has been set. Further, given the early 

stages of the case, there will be no prejudice to any parties if Plaintiff is granted leave to amend to 

add an additional defendant. Accordingly, for good cause shown, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s 

motion for leave to amend the complaint to identify IAC as an additional party. Plaintiff shall 

include any allegations relating to IAC in her new amended complaint to be submitted in response 

to the Court’s prior order dismissing the TAC. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 5, 2016

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:17-cv-00115-JSC Document 67 Filed 08/05/16 Page 2 of 2