Silver v. Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC
- Susan Illston
- 3:21-cv-00698
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Silver v. Greystar California, Judge Illston granted Silver’s request to remove her Fair Housing Act claim, leaving state-law claims.
Aimee Silver and the defendants, including Greystar California, Inc.; the amendment removes Silver’s Fair Housing Act claim and leaves only state-law claims.
What happened
Aimee Silver asked to amend her complaint by removing her claim under the Fair Housing Act. Greystar California, Inc., and the other defendants opposed the request.
The court found that Silver proposed no new facts or claims and that removing a claim would not prejudice the defendants or delay the case. It also found that forcing Silver to pursue a claim she no longer wished to pursue would not serve the interests of justice.
Judge Susan Illston granted the motion for leave to amend. The amendment leaves only state-law claims, and the court requested a memorandum addressing whether it should retain jurisdiction over what the order calls Silver’s “federal claims.”
The detailed version
- Silver v. Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC · No. 3:21-cv-00698
- Susan Illston
- Aug. 11, 2023
Background
Aimee Silver moved for permission to amend her complaint by removing her claim under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. The defendants opposed the motion.
Legal standard
Under Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party generally may amend a pleading with the opposing parties’ consent or the court’s permission. The rule provides that courts should freely grant permission when justice requires, and the opinion describes the policy favoring amendments as highly permissive.
Court’s reasoning
The court found amendment appropriate because Silver proposed no new facts or claims; the proposed amendment would only remove a claim. The court concluded that removing the claim, by itself, would not prejudice the defendants, delay the proceedings, or justify forcing Silver to continue pursuing a claim she did not wish to pursue.
The court stated that the amendment would leave only state-law claims. It requested that Silver submit a memorandum addressing whether the court should retain jurisdiction over her “federal claims.”
Disposition
The court granted Silver’s motion for leave to amend the complaint. The order did not state that the motion was granted in part or denied in part.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.