Carlson v. Colorado Center for Reproductive Medicine, LLC
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:21-cv-06133
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Carlson v. Colorado Center for Reproductive Medicine, Judge Chesney granted plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint and vacated the hearing.
Douglas F. Carlson and Maya Zubkovskaya may file an amended complaint; Colorado Center for Reproductive Medicine, LLC, Sarah Macleod, and Angela Fouts-Hyatt must respond to the amended pleading as appropriate.
What happened
Douglas F. Carlson and Maya Zubkovskaya asked to amend their complaint against Colorado Center for Reproductive Medicine, LLC, Sarah Macleod, and Angela Fouts-Hyatt. The defendants opposed the request, arguing that plaintiffs had delayed and that amendment would cause additional expense and require a new motion to dismiss.
Plaintiffs said they learned the facts supporting their additional allegations from documents received after they filed the original complaint. The court applied the rule that permission to amend should generally be freely given, considering delay, bad faith, prejudice, and whether the amendment would be futile. The court noted that no new parties would be added, no merits discovery had occurred, and no trial date had been set.
Judge Maxine M. Chesney granted plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend and vacated the hearing scheduled for January 28, 2022. The order did not decide the merits of plaintiffs’ claims.
The detailed version
- Carlson v. Colorado Center for Reproductive Medicine, LLC · No. 3:21-cv-06133
- Maxine Chesney
- Jan. 20, 2022
Background
Douglas F. Carlson and Maya Zubkovskaya moved for permission to file an amended complaint. Colorado Center for Reproductive Medicine, LLC, Sarah Macleod, and Angela Fouts-Hyatt opposed the motion. The defendants argued that plaintiffs had unduly delayed because they should have known the facts supporting the proposed allegations when they filed the original complaint. They also argued that amendment would prejudice them because they had already spent substantial effort and money litigating the case and might need to revise and refile their motion to dismiss.
Plaintiffs submitted declarations stating that they learned the relevant facts from documents received after the original complaint was filed. They also argued that the defendants would not suffer legally significant prejudice because no new parties would be added, no discovery had been conducted concerning the merits of the claims, and no trial date had been set.
Court’s analysis
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), permission to amend should be freely given when justice requires. The court considered four factors: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, and whether the amendment would be futile. It explained that delay alone is insufficient to justify denial and that prejudice to the opposing party carries the greatest weight.
The court rejected the defendants’ prejudice argument. It noted that the proposed amended complaint added no parties, that merits discovery had not begun, and that no trial date had been scheduled. The court also observed that defendants would have needed to file a new motion to dismiss even if plaintiffs had amended within the 21-day period allowed as a matter of course after service of a motion under Rule 12(b).
Disposition
The court granted plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint. It also vacated the hearing scheduled for January 28, 2022. The order did not decide the merits of the underlying claims or the pending motion to dismiss.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.