Le
Le v. Huynh
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 DIEN LE, Case No. 23-cv-00914-SI
Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S v. REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
TRINH NGOC HUYNH, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 47 Defendants.
12 Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. Dkt. No. 47. Defendants oppose. Dkt. No. 51. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that the motion is suitable for resolution without oral argument, and VACATES the May 10, 2024 hearing. After considering the parties’ briefing, attachments to the briefing, and the case record, the Court hereby DENIES the motion. Courts consider several factors in assessing the propriety of a motion for leave to amend: “bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.” Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004). “[D]elay…