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)

Download PDF
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?