Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jeffrey Vanderpoel filed a putative class action complaint against Matterport, LLC on July 12, 2026. After service, the parties obtained an extension of Matterport's response deadline to September 4. Matterport moved to dismiss that day and set an October 9 hearing. The court calculated that Vanderpoel could amend as of course within 21 days after service of that motion under Rule 15(a)(1)(B), or oppose it by September 25 under Local Rule 7.1(e)(2), fourteen calendar days before the hearing. He did neither by that date.
On September 29, Matterport filed a notice of non-opposition asking that its dismissal motion be granted as unopposed and that the suit be dismissed in its entirety. That same day, Vanderpoel sought leave to file a proposed first amended class action complaint. His counsel attributed the missed deadlines to an inadvertent calendaring error while on parental leave. Vanderpoel said he promptly sought a stipulation and then filed the motion, argued that amendment would not prejudice Matterport or cause unnecessary delay, and noted that no scheduling order had issued.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted leave to amend. It explained that Rule 15(a) directs leave to be freely given when justice requires, that prejudice is the touchstone, and that absent undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive there is a presumption favoring amendment, citing Eminence Capital and Foman v. Davis. Matterport had more than three weeks to oppose the leave motion but did not, so the court treated it as unopposed. Independently, the court found no bad-faith amendment effort and no reason to expect undue delay or prejudice while the case remained at the pleading stage.
The court therefore granted ECF No. 10 and denied Matterport's ECF No. 8 dismissal motion as moot. It did not adjudicate the merits of the underlying class allegations or enter a final dismissal. Vanderpoel was required to file the first amended complaint by October 27, 2026, and Matterport was directed to respond to that amended pleading by the deadline established under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Key Takeaways
- Rule 15(a)'s liberal amendment standard can permit a proposed amended complaint even after the plaintiff misses the deadlines to amend as of course and oppose dismissal.
- The court treated the leave motion as unopposed after Matterport failed to respond, but it also stated that the present briefing independently supported amendment.
- The order rested on the absence of bad faith and the lack of expected undue delay or prejudice at the pleading stage, rather than on a separate excusable-neglect analysis.
- Denying the dismissal motion as moot disposed of the motion directed at the original complaint without deciding the merits of the claims or ending the action.
- The amended complaint remained due by October 27, 2026, and Matterport retained its obligation to respond under the Federal Rules.
Why It Matters
This short, unpublished district court order illustrates how Rule 15(a)'s presumption favoring amendment operates when a plaintiff misses early pleading deadlines but promptly seeks leave. The court considered both Matterport's failure to oppose the leave motion and the absence of bad faith, expected delay, or prejudice. Its practical consequence was to keep the putative class action moving through a superseding pleading, while leaving the amended complaint's sufficiency and any future response to Matterport unresolved.