Barajas et al v. City of Rhonert Park

Filing 87

ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James denying 81 Motion to Amend/Correct. (mejlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/10/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

RAUL BARAJAS, et al.,

Case No. 14-cv-05157-MEJ

Plaintiffs,
8

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

v.
9
10

CITY OF ROHNERT PARK, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 81

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Plaintiffs Elva and Raul Barajas (“Plaintiffs”) have filed a Motion for Leave to File a

14

Second Amended Complaint against Defendants City of Rohnert Park (the “City”) and Officers

15

Jacey Tatum, David Rodriquez, and Matthew Snodgrass (the “Officers” and collectively,

16

“Defendants”). Mot., Dkt. No. 81. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek to add a state law claim under

17

California Civil Code section 52.1—the “Bane Act”—to assert that (1) the Officers violated the

18

rule set forth in Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006), and (2) the Officers’ behavior,

19

including the way Officer Tatum entered Plaintiffs’ home, was threatening and intimidating in

20

light of the same facts supporting their harassment-based claim. Id. at 1-2. Defendants oppose

21

this Motion. Opp’n, Dkt. No. 82.

22

Where, as here, a pleading deadline set in a pretrial scheduling order has passed (see Dkt.

23

No. 12), amendments to pleadings are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, rather than

24

Rule 15. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). When a party seeks to continue the dates set by the court, it

25

must first show “good cause” for modification of the order under Rule 16(b). Zivkovic v. So. Cal.

26

Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). The good cause inquiry “primarily considers the

27

diligence of the party seeking amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d

28

604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992); see, e.g., Jimenez v. R. Sambrano, 2009 WL 937042, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal.

1

Apr. 6, 2009) (discussing Rule 16 standard).
Plaintiffs’ primary motivation in seeking to add their Bane Act claim is to “compel

3

resolution” to an issue Defendants dispute: namely, whether the Randolph rule applies to this case.

4

See Mot. at 2, 4 (“Plaintiffs’ request to amend the pleadings to add the Bane Act claim also

5

directly responds to Defendants’ recent strategy to avoid liability under Randolph.”). On February

6

5, 2016, the Court issued an Order on the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment finding the

7

Randolph rule applied in the context of probation searches like the one in this case. See Order re:

8

Mots. for Summ. J. (“MSJ Order”), Dkt. No. 59; see Barajas v. City of Rohnert Park, ___ F. Supp.

9

3d ___, 2016 WL 454068 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2016). In doing so, the Court specifically noted that

10

“[b]oth parties focused more on whether Randolph actually applied in this case but did not devote

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

2

much argument or evidence as to whether the City’s action or inaction was the moving force

12

behind the potential violation of the Randolph rule.” 1 MSJ Order at 36. Finding Randolph

13

applied, the Court denied the City’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the Monell claim, but did

14

so without prejudice to give the parties an opportunity to file further summary judgment briefing

15

“concerning whether a City policy or custom was the moving force behind the potential Randolph

16

rule violation.” Id. at 37. The Court would have simply granted the City summary judgment if it

17

had found Randolph inapplicable.
As such, Plaintiffs’ attempt to now force the issue through their proposed Bane Act claim

18
19

is unnecessary—the Court has already resolved this issue. Moreover, the Court certified the issue

20

of whether the Randolph rule applies to this case for interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit in an

21

attempt to conclusively resolve the question. Dkt. No. 86. Asserting a Bane Act claim at this

22

point does not provide the mechanism for Plaintiffs to resolve these questions.
Finally, the Court cannot otherwise find Plaintiffs have diligently brought this claim. The

23
24

Bane Act provides a private right of action against a person or persons who interfere by “threats,

25

intimidation, or coercion, or attempts to interfere by threats, intimidation, or coercion, with the

26

exercise or enjoyment by any individual or individuals of rights secured by the Constitution or

27
1

28

The Court did not find the Officers actually violated the Randolph rule at that point because it
was unclear whether the facts underlying such a claim were undisputed.
2

1

laws of the United States, or of the rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state . . . .”

2

Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1. “There are two distinct elements for a section 52.1 cause of action. A

3

plaintiff must show (1) intentional interference or attempted interference with a state or federal

4

constitutional or legal right, and (2) the interference or attempted interference was by threats,

5

intimidation or coercion.” Allen v. City of Sacramento, 234 Cal. App. 4th 41, 67 (2015), as

6

modified on denial of reh’g (Mar. 6, 2015), review denied (May 20, 2015) (citations omitted).

7

Considering the elements of a Bane Act claim and the facts present in the record—and even in

8

Plaintiffs’ original pleadings—the only possible explanation for the delay is that Plaintiffs are

9

attempting to resolve the constitutional issue discussed above. In any event, the Court agrees with
Defendants that Plaintiffs have not been diligent in asserting this claim, and that allowing such a

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

claim now risks additional timely and costly motion practice.

12
13
14

The Court thus DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint to
add their proposed Bane Act claim.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16
17
18

Dated: August 10, 2016
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3