Aguilar v. City Of Concord et al

Filing 53

ORDER by Judge Laurel Beeler granting 49 Motion to Amend/Correct. Plaintiff Ignacio Aguilar is required to E-FILE the amended document. (lblc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/1/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

San Francisco Division

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

IGNACIO AGUILAR,

13

Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE
AMENDED COMPLAINT

v.

14
15

Case No. 16-cv-01670-LB

CITY OF CONCORD,

Re: ECF No. 49

Defendant.

16
17

The plaintiff moved to amend his complaint to name the Doe defendants and to include

18
19

theories of their liability. (Motion – ECF No. 49.1) The defendant opposes the motion and

20

observes that the deadline for amending pleadings has passed. (Opposition – ECF No. 51.) The

21

court finds that it can decide the motion without oral argument. See Civ. L. R. 7-1(b).
Under Rule 15, after a responsive pleading is filed, ―a party may amend its pleading only with

22
23

the opposing party‘s consent or the court‘s leave.‖ Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). ―The court should

24

freely give leave when justice so requires.‖ Id. This leave policy is applied with ―extreme

25

liberality.‖ See Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003). A

26
27
Record citations refer to the Electronic Case File (―ECF‖); pinpoint citations are to the ECFgenerated page numbers at the top of documents.
1

28

ORDER — No. 16-cv-01670-LB

1

court considers five factors to determine whether to grant leave to amend: (1) bad faith; (2) undue

2

delay; (3) prejudice to the opposing party; (4) futility of amendment; and (5) whether the plaintiff

3

previously amended his complaint. See Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805, 808 (9th Cir. 2004).

4

Delay alone is insufficient to justify denial of leave to amend. Jones v. Bates, 127 F.3d 839, 847

5

n.8 (9th Cir. 1997). Of the factors, prejudice to the opposing party is the ―touchstone of the inquiry

6

under rule 15(a)‖ and ―carries the greatest weight.‖ See Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052.

7

Absent prejudice or a strong showing on other factors, a presumption exists under Rule 15(a)

8

favoring granting leave to amend. See id. The party opposing a motion to amend bears the burden

9

of showing prejudice. DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987).

10

Motions to amend the pleadings filed after the date set in the court‘s scheduling order must

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

satisfy the more stringent ―good cause‖ showing required under Rule 16. See Johnson v.

12

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir.1992). ―Unlike Rule 15(a)‘s liberal

13

amendment policy which focuses on the bad faith of the party seeking to interpose an amendment

14

and the prejudice to the opposing party, Rule 16(b)‘ s ‗good cause‘ standard primarily considers

15

the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.‖ Id. at 609.

16

Under the circumstances, the court grants leave. The court appreciates the defendant‘s

17

argument but finds that naming the Doe defendants does not meaningfully alter the litigation

18

landscape. The court does not find bad faith and — while the timing is not ideal — does not find

19

sufficient lack of diligence to deny amendment. The parties have a case-management conference

20

set for June 22, 2017. They must address the effect of this order on the discovery issues that the

21

defendant identifies and develop a plan that meets the defendant‘s discovery needs.

22

This disposes of ECF No. 49.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

Dated: June 1, 2017
______________________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

25
26
27
28
ORDER — No. 16-cv-01670-LB

2