Heyward v. Hayward Police Department et al

Filing 55

ORDER by Judge Joseph C. Spero denying 45 Motion for Leave to File Third Party Complaint. (jcslc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/4/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MARCO B. HEYWARD,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 15-cv-04802-JCS
Related Case No. 15-4799-JCS

8
v.
9
HAYWARD POLICE DEPARTMENT, et
al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE THIRD-PARTY
COMPLAINT AGAINST 24 HOUR
FITNESS
Re: Dkt. No. 45

12
13

These related cases are based on events that occurred on February 24, 2015, when 24 Hour

14

Fitness manager Tyler Eklund allegedly called the Hayward Police Department and reported that

15

Plaintiff, a member of the 24-Hour Fitness gym, was creating a disturbance. Plaintiff alleges that

16

Officers McCrea and Wright, of the Hayward Police Department, responded to the call and

17

“aggressively detained” him. Plaintiff initiated two actions based on these events, suing 24 Hour

18

Fitness and Tyler Eklund in Case No. 15-4799 (“the 24 Hour Fitness Case”) and the Hayward

19

Police Department and the two officers (“the Hayward Defendants”) in Case No. 15-4802 (“the

20

City of Hayward Case”). The 24-Hour Fitness Case was dismissed pursuant to a settlement

21

agreement between Mr. Heyward and the 24-Hour Fitness Defendants on August 31, 2016. On

22

September 23, 2016, after the September 9, 2016 deadline set by the Court for filing amended

23

pleadings, the Hayward Defendants brought a Motion for Leave to File Third-Party Complaint

24

Against 24-Hour Fitness (“Motion”). The Motion is DENIED.

25

First, because the Court established a deadline for amending pleadings, the Hayward

26

Defendants must show good cause for amending their pleadings after that deadline. See Coleman

27

v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that request for leave to amend

28

the complaint was governed by the “good cause” standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 rather than the

1

more liberal standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) because the request was filed after the deadline set

2

by the court to amend pleadings had already expired). The Hayward Defendants have not done so.

3

They contend in their Reply brief they had good cause for failing to meet the deadline because the

4

stay on discovery was lifted on September 1, 2016, only nine days before the deadline for

5

amending pleadings. As a consequence, they say, they were unable to obtain discovery responses

6

or conduct depositions by the deadline and did not “fully understand that the matter should be

7

solely between 24 Hour Fitness and the Plaintiff.” This explanation does not establish good cause

8

because the Hayward Defendants did make any effort to extend the deadline. More importantly,

9

the discovery to which the Hayward Defendants refer is not referenced in the Motion, which relies
entirely on the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint. As Defendants have been aware of the nature

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

of Plaintiff’s allegations for many months, they did not have good cause to disregard the Court’s

12

deadline.

13

Even if the Motion had been timely, however, the Court would have denied the Motion

14

under Rule 15(a) on the basis that amendment is futile. The proposed third-party complaint seeks

15

to assert claims for equitable indemnity and contribution against 24-Hour Fitness. Yet the

16

Hayward Defendants have cited no authority suggesting that these remedies are available where,

17

as here, the officers themselves are alleged to have violated an individual’s Constitutional rights

18

by acting aggressively toward Mr. Hayward, detaining him without probable cause and falsifying

19

reports about the incident. See Amended Complaint, Docket No. 9. The fact that Plaintiff alleged

20

that 24-Hour Fitness Defendants engaged in additional wrongful conduct is of no moment.

21

The Motion is DENIED.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

Dated: November 4, 2016

24
25
26

______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge

27
28
2