Ramachandran v. Best Best & Krieger
- Beth Freeman
- 5:20-cv-03693
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Ramachandran v. Best Best & Krieger, Judge Beth Freeman vacated the hearing and granted Ramachandran leave to amend his complaint.
Satish Ramachandran was allowed to amend his complaint; the defendants remained subject to the pending motions to dismiss and the proposed amended pleading.
What happened
In Ramachandran v. Best Best & Krieger, Satish Ramachandran asked permission to file a first amended complaint against Best Best & Krieger, LLP, and the individual defendants. Defendant Pamela Jacobs opposed the request only because pending motions to dismiss had not yet been decided.
The court found that Ramachandran complied with the scheduling order and that allowing the amendment would not unfairly harm the defendants. The court kept the January 14, 2021 hearing date for the pending motions to dismiss and said it would consider the amendments only when deciding whether the proposed claims were legally futile. Ramachandran had to file a redlined amended complaint by January 4, 2021.
Judge Beth Freeman vacated the May 6, 2021 hearing and granted Ramachandran’s motion for leave to file the proposed amended complaint.
The detailed version
- Ramachandran v. Best Best & Krieger · No. 5:20-cv-03693
- Beth Freeman
- Dec. 24, 2020
Background
Satish Ramachandran moved for permission to file a first amended complaint against Best Best & Krieger, LLP; Christopher Diaz; Christina Hickey; Kirk Ballard; David Kornfield; Christopher Jordan; and Pamela Jacobs. Pamela Jacobs opposed the motion on the limited ground that the amendment should not be allowed before the court resolved three pending motions to dismiss, which were scheduled for January 14, 2021.
Court’s reasoning
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 generally favors allowing a party to amend a complaint unless the amendment would unfairly prejudice the opposing party, was requested in bad faith, would cause undue delay, or would be futile—that is, legally ineffective. The court found that Ramachandran complied with the scheduling order. To address possible prejudice, the court kept the January 14, 2021 hearing date for the pending motions to dismiss and stated that it would consider the amendments only when evaluating futility.
Ruling
The court found the requirements for amendment satisfied. It vacated the May 6, 2021 hearing date for the amendment motion, granted Ramachandran’s motion for leave to file the proposed first amended complaint, and ordered him to file a redlined version by January 4, 2021. The court did not rule on the pending motions to dismiss in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.