United States District Court, E.D. Washington
RYAN DALEY, an individual; and ISAAK CURRY, an individual, each on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT SERVICES LP, a Delaware corporation; and GREYSTAR RS WEST LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO AMEND
COMPLAINT AND DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
SALVADOR MENDOZA, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court, without oral argument, is Defendant Greystar Real
Estate Partners LLC's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Personal Jurisdiction, ECF No. 18, and Plaintiffs Ryan Daley
and Isaak Curry's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended
Complaint, ECF No. 23. Defendant seeks to dismiss
Plaintiffs' claims against it, arguing it lacks the
minimum contacts with Washington state required to confer
personal jurisdiction over it. ECF No. 18. Plaintiff seeks to
amend their complaint to clarify Defendant's relationship
to Washington state. ECF No. 23. The parties oppose each
other's motions. ECF Nos. 21, 28. Having reviewed the
pleadings and the file in this matter, the Court is fully
informed and finds good cause to grant Plaintiffs'
motion. Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant's motion
as moot with leave to renew.
Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that a party
seeking to amend a pleading after the opportunity to do so as
a matter of course has passed, may do so “only with the
opposing party's written consent or the court's
leave.” The rule instructs that the Court “should
freely give leave when justice so requires.”
Id. The Court must apply this policy with
“extreme liberality.” Rosenberg Bros. &
Co. v. Arnold, 283 F.2d 406, 406 (9th Cir. 1960);
accord Hoang v. Bank of Am., N.A., 910 F.3d 1096,
1102 (9th Cir. 2018).
Court may deny a party leave to amend a pleading “only
if there is strong evidence of ‘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, [or] futility of amendment,
etc.'” Sonoma Cty. Ass'n of Retired Emps.
v. Sonoma County, 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013)
(alteration in original) (quoting Foman v. Davis,
371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). “[T]he consideration of
prejudice to the opposing party carries the greatest
weight.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting
Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d
1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003)).
argues Plaintiffs amended their complaint once before and
fail to explain the reason they delayed these particular
proposed amendments until now. See ECF No. 28 at 6.
But this case is in its early stages; the Court issued its
initial scheduling order just yesterday and the deadline to
amend pleadings is not until February 7, 2020. ECF No. 33 at
2, 18. When Defendant filed its challenge to personal
jurisdiction two days late, the Court found excusable neglect
and granted it an extension of time. ECF No. 20. Two weeks
later, Plaintiffs sought the Court's leave to amend their
complaint. ECF No. 23. The record reveals no “strong
evidence of ‘undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive
. . ., [or] repeated failure to cure
deficiencies.'” Sonoma, 708 F.3d at 1117
(quoting Foman, 371 U.S. at 182).
argues Plaintiffs' proposed amendments would be futile
because they are unsubstantiated and do not establish
personal jurisdiction. ECF No. 28 at 3-6. Similarly,
Defendant argues Plaintiffs' proposed amendments would
prejudice it by forcing it to defend in a forum that lacks
personal jurisdiction. Id. at 6. Defendant's
argument puts the cart before the horse because whether
Plaintiffs' proposed amendments establish personal
jurisdiction cannot be fully litigated and adjudicated unless
and until the Court permits them. At this stage, the record
reveals no “strong evidence of ‘ . . . undue
prejudice . . . [or] futility of amendment.'”
Sonoma, 708 F.3d at 1117 (alteration in original)
(quoting Foman, 371 U.S. at 182).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
Plaintiffs Ryan Daley and Isaak Curry's Motion for Leave
to File Second Amended Complaint, ECF No.
23, is GRANTED.
Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint consistent with
ECF No. 23-1 no later than May 3, 2019.
Defendant Greystar Real Estate Partners LLC's Motion to
Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, ECF No.
18, is DENIED AS MOOT.
A. Defendant may RENEW this
motion in response to Plaintiffs' Second Amended
IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk's Office is directed to
enter this Order ...