1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ATON CENTER, INC., Case No.: 21cv1868-LL-AHG Plaintiff, 12

ORDER:

v. 13 14 MAGELLAN BEHAVIORAL HEALTH (1) GRANTING JOINT MOTION SYSTEMS, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, FOR LEAVE TO FILE 15 AMENDED ANSWER [ECF No. Defendants. 18]; AND 16

17 (2) DIRECTING DEFENDANTS

TO FILE FIRST AMENDED

18

ANSWER ON THE DOCKET

19 20 This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion for Leave to File 21 Amended Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint. ECF No. 18. Defendants’ proposed First 22 Amended Answer seeks to add affirmative defenses relating to the Employee Retirement 23 Income Security Act (“ERISA”) and the statute of frauds. Id. at 3-4; see also ECF No. 18- 24 2 at 11. 25 In general, a court should liberally allow a party to amend its pleading.” Sonoma 26 Cty. Ass’n of Retired Emps. v. Sonoma Cty., 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing 27 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)); see also Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 28 712 (9th Cir. 2001) (“A district court shall grant leave to amend freely when justice so 1 ||requires.”) (internal citation and quotation omitted). Further, a party may amend its 2 || pleading without a court order where the opposing party consents in writing. Fed. R. Civ. 3 ||P. 15(a)(2). 4 Considering the broad policy favoring amendments to the pleadings and the joint 5 ||nature of the request for leave to amend, the Court GRANTS the parties’ Joint Motion. 6 || ECF No. 18. The First Amended Answer is deemed filed and served as of the date of this 7 ||Order. Defendants are ORDERED to file on the docket a clean version of the First 8 || Amended Answer on or before March 4, 2022. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 ||Dated: March 1, 2022 NO 1] QF | 12 Honorable Linda Lopez 3 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28