Armida S. Roldan v. Target Corporation
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
I. BACKGROUND
On December 4, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in Superior Court of the County of San Bernardino. (“Complaint,” Dkt. No. 1-1.) Defendant Target Corporation (“Target”) removed on March 8, 2021. (Dkt. No. 1.)
On March 11, 2021, Plaintiff filed her first motion for leave to amend. (Dkt. No. 9.) The Court denied that motion for failure to comply with Local Rule 7-3. (Dkt. No. 16.) On April 13, 2021, Plaintiff filed her second motion for leave to amend—twice. (Dkt. Nos. 17, 18.) She withdrew those motions the same day. (Dkt. Nos. 19, 20.)
On April 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed this Motion. Defendant opposed on May 3, 2021. (“Opposition,” Dkt. No. 27.)
II. LEGAL STANDARD1
Rule 15 provides that leave to amend “shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[t]his policy is to be applied with extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, L.L.C. v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001)). Leave to amend is not automatic, however. The Ninth Circuit considers a motion for leave to amend under five factors: bad…