Prasad et al v. County of Sutter et al

Filing 48

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 11/19/2012 GRANTING #43 Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint; Plaintiffs have 10 days leave from the date on which this Order is filed to file the second amended complaint. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

Estate of NATHAN PRASAD,
deceased, by and through MARY
PRASAD; MARY PRASAD; T.P., a
minor; and A.P., a minor,

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Plaintiffs,
v.
COUNTY OF SUTTER; J. PAUL
PARKER, Sutter County Sheriff’s
Department Sheriff; DAVID
SAMSON, Sutter County Jail
Division Commander; NORMAN
BIDWELL, Sutter County Jail
Corrections Lieutenant; LOU ANNE
CUMMINGS, Sutter County Health
Officer; AMERJIT BHATTAL, Sutter
County Assistant Director of
Human Services – Health
Division; BRENT GARBETT, Sutter
County Jail Nurse Program
Manager; DORIS BROWN, Sutter
County Jail Advanced Registered
Nurse Practitioner; MELODY
YOUNG, Sutter County Jail
Licensed Vocational Nurse;
BALJINDER RAI, Sutter County
Jail Deputy Officer; SHANE
DICKSON, Sutter County Jail
Deputy Officer; UNKNOWN JAIL
EMPLOYEE I; FREMONT-RIDEOUT
HEALTH GROUP; MICHAEL FRATERS,
D.O.; and DOES I through LX,
Defendants.
________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:12-cv-00592-GEB-GGH
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT

27

Plaintiffs move under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”)

28

15(a)(2) for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) to add

1

1

eight new defendants and factual allegations against them. Defendants

2

County of Sutter, Parker, Samson, Bidwell, Cummings, Bhattal, Garbett,

3

Brown, Young, Rai, and Dickson (“Defendants”) oppose the motion, arguing

4

that amendment would be “premature” or “futile.” (Opp’n 2:8, 2:12.)

5

Plaintiffs rejoin that their motion is “not premature, but instead was

6

made in good faith and in compliance” with the Court’s Status (Pretrial

7

Scheduling) Order and that their SAC is not futile, since it “alleges

8

specific facts . . . which, if proven, would . . . plainly state claims

9

against the newly-named defendants.” (Reply 2:24-25, 6:16.)

10

Rule 15(a)(2) provides that “[t]he court should freely grant

11

leave [to amend a pleading] when justice so requires.” “‘This policy is

12

to

13

Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 654 F.3d 975, 985 (9th Cir. 2011)

14

(quoting Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th

15

Cir 2003)).

16
17
18
19

be

applied

with

extreme

liberality.’”

C.F.

ex

rel.

Farnan

v.

In the absence of any apparent or declared
reason-such as 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, futility of
amendment, etc.-the leave sought should, as the
rules require, be “freely given.”

20
21

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Here, there is no contention

22

of undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure

23

deficiencies, or undue prejudice. Rather, Defendants’ arguments are that

24

the amendment would be “premature” or “futile.” (Opp’n 2:8, 2:12.)

25

In evaluating arguments for denying leave to amend, “[n]ot all

26

of the factors merit equal weight.” Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052.

27

Instead, “it is the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party

28

that carries the greatest weight. . . . Absent prejudice, or a strong
2

1

showing

2

presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Id.;

3

Capistrano Unified School Dist., 654 F.3d at 985 (same). Defendants have

4

not

5

amendment; nor that another Foman factor favors denial of the motion.

6

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended

7

Complaint is granted. Plaintiffs have ten (10) days leave from the date

8

on which this Order is filed to file the SAC.

9

Dated:

of

shown

any

that

of

they

the

remaining

would

be

Foman

factors,

prejudiced

by

there

Plaintiffs’

exists

proposed

November 19, 2012

10
11
12

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
Senior United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

a