David Penner MD PLLC v. Clear TMS+ PLLC
3:25-cv-05033
W.D. Wash.Jun 26, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Penner moves for leave to amend his complaint to add Dianna Wilcox, the owner of defendant Clear TMS+ PLLC, as a defendant.
- Penner alleges Wilcox personally involved herself in the actions giving rise to Penner’s claims, specifically by manually inputting his name into a Google ad platform.
- Wilcox opposes the amendment, asserting it is harassing and futile, and that LLC members are not liable for entities' obligations.
- The procedural context is a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), which allows liberal amendment of pleadings.
- The court highlights that if amendment were denied, Penner could file a separate, duplicative lawsuit, which would likely be consolidated anyway.
- The judge grants Penner’s motion, allowing him ten days to file the amended complaint; Wilcox can raise any defenses thereafter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Leave to amend complaint to add Wilcox | Wilcox directly involved; justice requires amendment | Amendment is harassment and futile | Leave to amend granted |
| Futility of amendment | Claims are based on Wilcox's individual acts | No valid claim can be stated; LLC shield applies | Not futile; claims against Wilcox allowed |
| Bias of declarant (Carter) | (Not germane to motion to amend) | Declarant biased in favor of Penner | Not relevant to amending complaint |
| Requirement for new lawsuit if denied | (Implicit: more efficient to amend than file duplicate case) | (No efficiency argument made) | Amendment preferred for efficiency |
Key Cases Cited
- Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876 (9th Cir. 2010) (leave to amend must be freely given when justice so requires)
- Eminence Cap., LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2003) (liberal policy for amending pleadings; prejudice is the most important factor)
- United States v. Corinthian Colls., 655 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2011) (five-factor test for permitting amendment to complaint)
- Sweaney v. Ada County, Idaho, 119 F.3d 1385 (9th Cir. 1997) (futility is if no set of facts can state a valid claim)