United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
C. Nye Chief U.S. District Court Judge
before the Court is Pro se Plaintiff Josephine Guion's
Motion to Amend Original Complaint (Dkt. 19), Motion for
Joinder of Parties (Dkt. 25), Motion for Leave to File
Sur-Reply (Dkt. 29), Motion to Supplement (Dkt. 32), and
Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. 35). Having reviewed
the record and briefs, the Court finds that the facts and
legal arguments are adequately presented. Accordingly, in the
interest of avoiding further delay, and because the Court
finds that the decisional process would not be significantly
aided by oral argument, the Court will address the motion
without oral argument. Dist. Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 7.1(d)(1)(B).
background of this case is set forth in the Court's prior
order (Dkt 14). The Court incorporates that background by
has filed various motions. The Court considers each in turn:
Motion to Amend (Dkt. 19)
Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that, once a
responsive pleading has been served, a party may amend its
pleading “only with the opposing party's written
consent or the court's leave. The court should freely
give leave when justice so requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
15(a)(2). The Ninth Circuit recognizes that “the
underlying purpose of Rule 15 [is] to facilitate [a] decision
on the merits, rather than on the pleadings or
technicalities, ” Chudacoff v. University Med.
Cent. of Southern Nev., 649 F.3d 1143, 1152 (9th Cir.
2011). “Rule 15's policy of favoring amendments to
pleadings should be applied with extreme liberality.”
United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir.
need not be granted, however, where the amendment
“would cause the opposing party undue prejudice, is
sought in bad faith, constitutes an exercise in futility, or
creates undue delay.” Ascon Props., Inc. v. Mobil
Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)).
Guion seeks to amend her complaint to assert claims related
to allegations of fraud and forgery. Defendants contend that
“justice does not require amendment, ”
“amendment does not serve any legitimate purpose,
” “amendment is prejudicial to the defendant,
” “amendment is futile, ” and “denial
of the motion does not harm the merits of plaintiff's
action.” Dkt. 22, at 2. The Court, however, finds
allowing Guion to amend is proper. Her Motion to Amend was
timely, allowing amendment would not be prejudicial to the
Defendant, and the Court does not have sufficient information
to confidently say that allowing Guion to amend her Complaint
would be futile.
such, and because Rule 15's policy of favoring amendments
to pleadings should be applied with extreme liberality,
Guion's Motion to Amend (Dkt. 19) is GRANTED. If Guion
still desires to file an amended complaint, she must do so
within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.
Motion for Joinder (Dkt. 25)
similar reasons as those outlined above, the Court will also
allow Guion to join additional parties to her amended
complaint. Kaminski v. Target Stores, 1998 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 13977 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 4, 1998) (“Amending a
complaint to add additional parties is governed by the same
liberal standard set forth in Rule 15 for amending
complaints.”); Anna Claire Farms, Inc. v. Bayer
CroSscience LP (In re Genetically Modified Rice Litig.),
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91724 (E.D. Mo. Sep. 2, 2010)
(“Rule 15 does not specifically address whether a party
may join additional parties by amending a complaint. However,
courts regularly allow parties to add or drop parties by
amending a complaint under Rule ...