Allen, et al v. County of Lake, et al

Filing 67

ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson granting 63 Amended Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint; terminating 46 and 56 Motions to Dismiss. (tehlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/17/2014)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

MONA ALLEN, et al.,

5

Plaintiffs,

6
7
8

v.
COUNTY OF LAKE, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-03934-TEH
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
AMENDED MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND
TERMINATING DEFENDANTS’
MOTIONS TO DISMISS AS MOOT

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Now before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for leave to file a second amended

12

complaint. The County Defendants filed a brief Opposition on November 7, while

13

Defendant Freeman did not file an Opposition. Plaintiffs filed a Reply on November 14.

14

The Court has considered the arguments of the parties in the papers submitted, and

15

concludes that this matter is suitable for disposition without oral argument, pursuant to

16

Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’ Motion is GRANTED

17

and Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss are TERMINATED.

18
19
20

BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs filed this action on August 29, 2014; two days later, they filed their First

21

Amended Complaint as of right. (Docket Nos. 1, 4). The County Defendants filed a

22

motion to dismiss in September, and Defendant Freeman filed a similar motion in early

23

October. (Docket Nos. 46, 56). On October 14, the Court stayed proceedings in those

24

motions after Plaintiffs indicated they would file a motion for leave to amend. (Docket

25

No. 60). The same day, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction

26

against the County of Lake, finding that Plaintiffs had generally shown a likelihood of

27

success on the merits, but that the allegations against the individually named Defendants

28

were inadequate. (Docket No. 59). Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend on October

1

20; four days later, they filed the amended motion and proposed complaint now under

2

consideration. (Docket Nos. 61, 63).

3
4

LEGAL STANDARD
“The court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R.

5
6

Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “This policy is to be applied with extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital,

7

LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks and

8

citations omitted). There are five factors a court should consider in granting leave to

9

amend: prejudice, futility, undue delay, repeated failure to correct deficiencies, and bad
faith. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). “Absent prejudice, or a strong showing

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

of any of the remaining Foman factors, there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in

12

favor of granting leave to amend.” Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052.

13
14

DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs’ Proposed Second Amended Complaint (“PSAC”) makes five significant

15
16

changes: it removes all of the Doe Plaintiffs; it adds one named Plaintiff; it adds five

17

named Defendants; it alleges additional facts regarding the conduct of the individually

18

named Defendants; and it adds multiple tort law claims.1 In opposition, the County

19

Defendants only argue that amendment would be futile; they take no position on prejudice

20

or the other Foman factors in their one-page Opposition. Defendant Freeman has not

21

taken a position on any of the factors, as he has not filed an Opposition. The Court

22

disagrees with the County Defendants and concludes that amendment would not be futile.

23

Instead of making new arguments against the PSAC, the County Defendants

24

incorporate their Motion to Dismiss into their Opposition, arguing that the PSAC does not

25

cure the deficiencies they previously alleged. Those alleged deficiencies are that Plaintiffs

26
1

27
28

Plaintiffs’ proposed SAC contains two “Seventh Cause[s] of Action,” although one is
merely a slightly different statement of the other. PSAC at 21-22 (Docket No. 63-1). In
the interest of clarity, the Court encourages Plaintiffs to properly state and enumerate their
claims.
2

1

have not plausibly alleged standing, nor a violation of their constitutional rights, and that

2

the claims fail as a matter of law. Opp’n at 2 (Docket No. 65).

3

The Court finds the County Defendants’ arguments unpersuasive, for three reasons.

4

First, in their one-page Opposition, the County Defendants do not show how the PSAC is

5

insufficient. They merely incorporate their prior Motion to Dismiss. That motion,

6

however, related to the First Amended Complaint, with somewhat different factual

7

allegations and claims. It is not enough to simply state that the same arguments still apply,

8

without confronting the changes Plaintiffs have proposed.

9

Second, the County Defendants ignore the Court’s Order of October 14, 2014. In
that Order, in finding that Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits, the Court rejected

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

many of the same arguments that the County Defendants now raise by incorporation. For

12

instance, the Court found that Plaintiffs adequately alleged both privacy and property

13

interests, and therefore likely had standing to bring their claims. October 14, 2014 Order

14

at 11 (Docket No. 59). The Court found that, not only had Plaintiffs adequately alleged

15

violations of their Fourth Amendment rights, but they were also likely to succeed on that

16

claim. Id. at 4-5. While Defendants may raise these issues in a new motion to dismiss if

17

they find it worthwhile, they provide nothing in their Opposition that the Court has not

18

already considered, and rejected, in its prior Order.

19

Finally, the presumption of granting leave to amend weighs heavily in Plaintiffs’

20

favor here. Defendants simply have not made the “strong showing” of futility that is

21

required to overcome that presumption.

22

However, a finding that amendment is not futile is not the same as finding that a

23

complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The Court stayed

24

proceedings on the prior motions to dismiss before receiving Plaintiffs’ Opposition (see

25

Docket No. 60); it therefore has not yet received Plaintiffs’ arguments in response to those

26

motions, apart from what is included in this Motion for Leave to Amend. And, as noted,

27

the County Defendants chose not to confront Plaintiffs’ new arguments, but only

28

incorporated their prior motion to dismiss, while Defendant Freeman filed no opposition at
3

1

all. While the Court finds that amendment now would not be futile and that the prior

2

motions to dismiss are moot, it reserves judgment on whether any claims should be

3

dismissed until that question has been adequately briefed by all parties. Should

4

Defendants decide to file renewed motions to dismiss, they are instructed to refer to

5

Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint.

6
7
8
9

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Leave to file a Second
Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Both of Defendants’ prior Motions to Dismiss are
TERMINATED as moot. Accordingly, the hearing set for December 1, 2014, is

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

VACATED.

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16
17

Dated: 11/17/2014

_____________________________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4