Emerick v. Regus Management Group, LLC, 3:18-cv-01576

Plaintiff Taylor Emerick sued Regus Management Group, LLC in July 2018 for FEHA/CFRA violations, CFRA retaliation, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and unfair business practices.
Plaintiff’s original counsel died in October 2018; new counsel substituted in March 2019 and the court extended amendment deadlines via an amended scheduling order.
On April 12, 2019, Plaintiff moved for leave to file a First Amended Complaint to add detail and correct inconsistencies based on discovery.
Defendant filed, withdrew, and refiled an opposition to the motion to amend, creating docket confusion; the court initially (erroneously) indicated the motion was unopposed.
Defendant moved for reconsideration after the court granted leave to amend, arguing undue delay, bad faith, and prejudice because the amendment would moot its pending motion to dismiss.
The court denied the motion for reconsideration, finding Plaintiff acted in good faith, the case was at an early stage, and Defendant failed to show undue delay, bad faith, or substantial prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether leave to file a First Amended Complaint should be granted under Rule 15(a)	Motion timely under amended scheduling order; seeks to add detail and correct facts from discovery	Opposes amendment claiming undue delay, bad faith, and that amendment would moot its motion to dismiss	Court granted leave to amend; denied reconsideration — Rule 15 favors permitting amendments when justice requires
Whether Plaintiff acted in bad faith or unduly delayed	New counsel promptly filed motion after substitution; prior counsel’s death explains delay	Plaintiff knew facts earlier and thus delayed; prior motion to dismiss showed failure to prosecute	Court found no bad faith or undue delay given counsel substitution and early stage of litigation
Whether amendment would prejudice Defendant	Amendment merely adds detail and corrects inconsistencies; no radical shift in litigation	Amendment would moot Defendant’s motion to dismiss and force new defense costs	Court held mootness of motion to dismiss and additional litigation costs do not demonstrate substantial prejudice
Whether docket irregularities warrant reconsideration	Plaintiff noted docket confusion but proceeded timely	Defendant relied on docket confusion to seek reconsideration	Court acknowledged docket confusion but found no basis to overturn its grant of leave to amend

Ditto v. McCurdy, 510 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir.) (factors for amendment: bad faith, delay, prejudice, futility)
Loehr v. Ventura Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist., 743 F.2d 1310 (9th Cir.) (amendment factors analysis)
Howey v. United States, 481 F.2d 1187 (9th Cir.) (amendment standard discussion)
Hofstetter v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (courts should draw inferences in favor of granting leave to amend)
Griggs v. Pace Am. Grp., Inc., 170 F.3d 877 (9th Cir.) (favoring amendments where just)
Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir.) (prejudice to opposing party carries greatest weight)
SAES Getters S.p.A. v. Aeronex, Inc., 219 F. Supp. 2d 1081 (S.D. Cal.) (definition of substantial prejudice)
Stearns v. Select Comfort Retail Corp., 763 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (N.D. Cal.) (delay or additional discovery alone not necessarily prejudice)
Clark v. Citizens of Humanity, LLC, 97 F. Supp. 3d 1199 (S.D. Cal.) (litigation expenses alone do not equal prejudice)
Nissou-Rabban v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., 285 F. Supp. 3d 1136 (S.D. Cal.) (additional time/costs do not automatically constitute undue prejudice)
SAP AG v. i2 Techs., Inc., 250 F.R.D. 472 (N.D. Cal.) (no prejudice when amendment is brought early)
Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074 (9th Cir.) (examples of amendments that cause prejudice due to radical shifts)