Fobbs v. New Haven Unified School District et al
Filing
299
ORDER by Judge Hamilton granting in part and denying in part 290 Motion for Leave to File (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2013)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7
KHALIF L., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
CITY OF UNION CITY,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
No. C 09-2723 PJH
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
SIXTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
Defendant.
_______________________________/
12
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a sixth amended complaint came on for hearing
13
14
before this court on January 23, 2013. Plaintiff Steve S. (“plaintiff”) appeared through his
15
counsel, Pamela Price. Defendant City of Union City (“defendant” or “Union City”)
16
appeared through its counsel, Rachel Wagner. Having read the parties’ papers and
17
carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause
18
appearing, the court hereby GRANTS in part and DENIES in part plaintiff’s motion for leave
19
to file a sixth amended complaint for the reasons stated at the hearing and as set forth
20
below.
21
Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED as to the two new causes of action asserted against
22
Union City, for (1) violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1982, and (2) violation of the Fair Housing Act.
23
Because this case had been proceeding as a class action until May 8, 2012, the court finds
24
that plaintiff had good reason to wait until after class certification was denied to assert
25
these two causes of action, which likely applied to only a small subset of the putative class.
26
Also, because the two new causes of action arise out of the same general set of facts as
27
does plaintiff’s section 1983 claim against Union City, allowing these claims to go forward
28
will not unduly prejudice defendant.
1
However, to the extent that plaintiff now seeks to assert a section 1983 claim against
2
three individual Union City police officers, plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. As defendant points
3
out, “[a]mendments seeking to add claims are to be granted more freely than amendments
4
adding parties.” Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Nevada Power Co., 950 F.2d 1429, 1432
5
(9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff has not presented any reason why this cause of action could not
6
have been asserted earlier or why these defendants could not have been added earlier.
7
The theory of their liability is almost identical to that as to Union City and their identities
8
have been known for years. Accordingly, the court finds that the addition of three new
9
defendants, more than three years after the original complaint was filed, and after it has
been amended five times already, would be unduly prejudicial to those defendants,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
particularly given the absence of good cause for their omission up to this point.
12
may file a sixth amended complaint, consistent with this order, by January 30, 2013. The
13
caption of the complaint must bear the full name of Steve S., who is the only remaining
14
plaintiff in the case, and who is now proceeding as an adult (rather than through a guardian
15
ad litem), and must omit reference to plaintiffs who have dismissed their claims. Defendant
16
must answer or otherwise respond to the sixth amended complaint by February 20, 2013.
17
For purposes of clarity, any future reference to the sixth amended complaint should be
18
styled as “6AC,” and not as “SAC.”
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
Plaintiff
Dated: January 23, 2013
21
__________________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?