1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VETERANS RIDESHARE, INC., et al., Case No. 20-cv-01304-BAS-LL

12 Plaintiffs,

ORDER:

13 v. (1) GRANTING JOINT MOTION 14 NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL

FOR LEAVE TO FILE

CORPORATION, et al., 15 AMENDED ANSWER (ECF No. Defendants. 30); AND 16

17 (2) DIRECTING DEFENDANTS

TO FILE FIRST AMENDED

18

ANSWER ON THE DOCKET

19 20 21 On October 28, 2021, this Court denied without prejudice the parties’ joint motion 22 for Defendants to file a First Amended Answer to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint on 23 the ground that the parties’ submission was noncompliant with Local Rule 15.1(b) (ECF 24 No. 27). (Order, ECF No. 28.) The parties filed a renewed motion pursuant to the Order 25 (ECF No. 30), which shows, “through redlining, underlining, [and] strikeouts,” 26 Defendants’ proposed amendments to its operative Answer as required by the local civil 27 rules (First Am. Ans., ECF No. 30-1). In essence, Defendants’ proposed First Amended 28 Answer (1) add an affirmative defense based on the doctrine of comparative negligence 1 (2) add new factual allegations to the existent affirmative defense predicated upon 2 || Defendants’ contention they were not the proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries. 3 (First Am. Ans. 9 137-38.) 4 “In general, a court should liberally allow a party to amend its pleading.” Sonoma 5 || Cty. Ass’n of Retired Emps. v. Sonoma Cty., 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing 6 || Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)); see also Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 7 || 712 (9th Cir. 2001) (“A district court ‘shall grant leave to amend freely when justice so 8 |/requires.’” (quoting Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc))). 9 Further, a party may amend its pleading without a court order where the opposing party 10 |}consents in writing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 11 Considering the broad policy favoring amendments to the pleadings and the joint 12 nature of the request for leave to amend, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion. (ECF 13 ||No. 30). The First Amended Answer is deemed filed and served as of the date of this 14 |}Order. Defendants are ORDERED to file on the docket a clean version of the First 15 || Amended Answer. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 || DATED: November 1, 2021 ( yi A (Haphan 6 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28