Smerda et al v. Oracle Management Incorporated et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Zoe Federoff Smerda, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Oracle Management Incorporated, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-00542-TUC-RM
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Second Amended
Complaint. (Doc. 9.) For the following reasons, the Motion will be granted.
I. Legal Standard
A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 15(a)(1). “In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the
opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Leave
should freely be given “when justice so requires.” Id. In determining whether to grant
leave to amend, courts consider the following factors: “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory
motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments
previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the
amendment, [and] futility of amendment.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316
F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003).
. . . .
. . . .
Case 4:25-cv-00542-RM Document 10 Filed 12/08/25 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
II. Discussion
Plaintiffs have already amended their Complaint once as a matter of course. (See
Doc. 8.) Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), Plaintiffs
require the opposing parties’ written consent or leave of Court to file a Second Amended
Complaint. Plaintiffs aver that they are unable to obtain the opposing parties’ written
consent to amend because the opposing parties have not yet appeared in this action. (Doc.
9 at 4.) Accordingly, Plaintiffs request leave of Court to amend.
Plaintiffs state that they seek to amend for purposes of joining additional plaintiffs
who assert “injuries stemming from the same merchandise, recordings, and image-based
exploitation already at issue in this lawsuit.” (Id. at 6.) Plaintiffs argue that adding the
new plaintiffs will ensure “that all parties with legally cognizable interests arising from
Defendants’ conduct can obtain relief in a single, coordinated lawsuit,” thereby promoting
fairness and judicial efficiency. (Id. at 6-7.) Plaintiffs aver that they filed their Motion
without delay after identifying the additional plaintiffs. (Id. at 8.) Plaintiffs assert that
Defendants will suffer no prejudice because they have not yet appeared or filed an answer,
and discovery has not yet commenced. (Id. at 7-8.) Plaintiffs attach a redlined copy of
their proposed Second Amended Complaint, in compliance with LRCiv 15.1(a).
Without prejudice to Defendants’ ability to file motions under Rule 12(b), the Court
finds that Plaintiffs’ proposed amendment would not be futile given the similarity between
the existing claims and the claims of the proposed new plaintiffs. Defendants would not
be prejudiced by the proposed amendment given the early stage of this case; Defendants
have not yet appeared in this action and a scheduling order has not yet issued. The Court
finds no undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, or repeated failure to cure deficiencies by
amendments previously allowed. Accordingly, under the liberal standards of Rule
15(a)(2), the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ Motion.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
Case 4:25-cv-00542-RM Document 10 Filed 12/08/25 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Second Amended
Complaint (Doc. 9) is granted. Pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 15.1(a),
Plaintiffs shall file and serve their Second Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days
of the date this Order issues.
Dated this 5th day of December, 2025.
Case 4:25-cv-00542-RM Document 10 Filed 12/08/25 Page 3 of 3