Bell-Sparrow v. Wiltz
3:12-cv-02782
N.D. Cal.Feb 8, 2013Background
- Pro se plaintiff Arlene Bell-Sparrow filed a complaint May 31, 2012 against Paul Wiltz, Mone’t Inc., and Wonda McGowan for breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, deceptive practices, and breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
- Bell-Sparrow did not serve Wiltz or Mone’t Inc.; McGowan was served and answered.
- McGowan moved to dismiss (misnamed as summary judgment) and plaintiff moved to amend.
- Court considered both motions; no oral argument necessary; hearing vacated.
- Rule 15 liberal amendment policy governs leave to amend; four-factor test from Lockheed Martin applies; prejudice to the opposing party carries greatest weight.
- McGowan did not oppose the amendment; opposition to the motion to amend was not filed; amendment seeks to clarify McGowan’s involvement with the contract and alleged fraud.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether leave to amend should be granted | Bell-Sparrow seeks to clarify facts and McGowan’s acted in concert with others | McGowan contends plaintiff fails to state a claim against her as she was not a contract party | Leave to amend granted |
| Whether McGowan's motion to dismiss is moot after amendment | Amendment renders moot dismissal to the extent it addresses asserted deficiencies | Dismissal remains moot only if amendment voids the grounds for dismissal | Motion to dismiss denied as moot due to amendment. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Daisy Sys. Corp., 97 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 1996) (liberality in amendment generally favored; leave to amend discretion of court)
- Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2003) (leave to amend to be applied liberally; extreme liberality)
- Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708 (9th Cir. 2001) (liberality of amendments; policy considerations)
- Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385 (9th Cir. 1990) (leave to amend not automatic; four-factor test)
- Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 194 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 1999) (four-factor prejudice, bad faith, delay, futility analysis; prejudice weighs most)