Bauer, et al. vs. Harris, et al.

Filing 36

ORDER granting 33 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. The Motion Hearing set for July 26, 2013 is VACATED. Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint within ten (10) days of the service of this order, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 7/22/2013. (Yu, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

BARRY BAUER, et al.,

CASE NO.

1:11-cv-01440-LJO-MJS

10
Plaintiffs,

11
v.

12
13

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
(Doc. 33)

KAMALA D. HARRIS, et al.,

14

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Defendants.

15

/

16
17
18
19

I.

INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ June 13, 2013, motion for leave to file

20

a second amended complaint.

21

authorities supporting the motion, Plaintiffs explain that the purpose of the amended

22

complaint is to remove claims that have been affected by recent California legislation:

23
24
25
26

(ECF No. 33.)

In the memorandum of points and

Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, attached to Plaintiffs’ Notice
of Motion as Exhibit “A,” removes all claims challenging the fees provided for
by California Penal Code Sections 28300(c), 23690(a), and 31650(c) (i.e.,
all fees but the Dealers Record of Sale [DROS] Fee). It also removes all
claims addressing the excessive nature of the DROS Fee. This streamlining
of the case was prompted by California’s recent passage of Senate Bill 140

27
-1-

1

(SB 140), appropriating monies from the DROS Special Account to funding
the Armed Prohibited Persons System (APPS).

2
3

(Memo. of P&A's, ECF No. 33-1 at 2.)

4
5
6

On July 9, 2013, Defendants filed a statement of non-opposition to the motion to
amend. (ECF No. 35.)
II.

LEGAL STANDARD

7
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) authorizes the Court to grant leave to
8
9

amend in a case at this procedural stage and directs: "[A] party may amend its pleading

10

only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. The court should freely

11

give leave when justice so requires." Both parties recognize the great liberality with which

12

leave to amend is be granted under Rule15(a)(2). Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc.,

13

316 F. 3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003). Generally, leave to amend should be given absent

14
a showing of futility, undue prejudice, bad faith or dilatory motive by the moving party.
15
16

Foreman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Martinez v. Newport Beach City, 125 F. 3d.

17

777, 785 (9th Cir. 1997).

18

III.

19
20

ANALYSIS
The Court finds good cause to amend the complaint given the enactment of

California Senate Bill 140 on May 7, 2013 and its effect on the claims of the present

21
complaint. The parties met and conferred after the enactment of Senate Bill 140, and
22
23

"agreed that the best course of action for both the Court and the parties is for Plaintiffs to

24

amend their complaint to reduce the number of issues to be tried to streamline the lawsuit

25

into a single Second Amendment claim challenging only one of the fees currently at issue

26

in this litigation, and to set a new scheduling order accordingly." (Decl. of Sean A. Brady,

27
-2-

1

ECF No. 33-3, ¶ 9.) Given good cause and the consent of Defendants, the Court hereby

2

GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint.

3

IV.

ORDER

4
The Court ORDERS as follows:

5
6

1. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint be GRANTED;

7

2. The motion hearing presently set for July 26, 2013, is hereby VACATED; and

8

3. Plaintiff is hereby ordered to file the Second Amended Complaint within ten (10)

9

days of the service of this order.

10
11
12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
ci4d6

July 22, 2013

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
-3-