Buckhorn
Buckhorn v. Hettinger
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 JACK BUCKHORN, et al., Case No. 15-cv-04352-TSH Plaintiffs,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
Vv. LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED
COMPLAINT
MARLON EUGENE HETTINGER, Re: Dkt. No. 179 Defendant.
As the Ninth Circuit determined Plaintiffs did not properly allege a state law breach of
v 14 || contract claim in their Second Amended Complaint, they now seek leave to amend pursuant to O || Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). ECF No. 179. Defendants did not file an opposition. The Q 16 || Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument and VACATES the August
13, 2020 hearing. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).
Having considered the relevant factors in deciding a motion for leave to amend, see In re W. States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 716, 738 (9th Cir. 2013), and that leave || to amend should be determined with “all inferences in favor of granting the motion,” Griggs v. 21 …