Felarca et al v. Birgeneau et al

Filing 260

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting 221 Motion to Dismiss; granting 224 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; denying 232 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8
9

YVETTE FELARCA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

v.
ROBERT J. BIRGENEAU, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No.: 11-CV-5719 YGR
ORDER:
GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
(DKT. NO. 221);
GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT
ON THE PLEADINGS (DKT. NO. 224); AND
DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
AMEND COMPLAINT (DKT. NO. 232)

14
15

On August 11, 2014, Defendant Marc DeCoulode moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims under

16

the First Amendment and for false arrest as stated in their Third Amended Complaint (“TAC,” Dkt.

17

No. 217). The false arrest claims against him were previously dismissed without leave to amend.

18

On that same date Defendants Garcia and Obichere of the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office

19

moved to strike the false arrest claims against them in the TAC. Those claims, too, were previously

20

dismissed without leave to amend.

21

The motions were opposed and came on regularly for hearing on September 16, 2014.

22

For the reasons as stated on the record and stated herein, the motions of DeCoulode, Garcia

23
24

and Obichere are GRANTED.
Plaintiffs’ TAC was filed without leave of Court and after the Court had dismissed claims

25

against Defendants DeCoulode, Garcia, and Obichere without leave to amend. (Dkt. No. 180, 181.)

26

The Court’s order on the prior Decoulode motion specifically directed Plaintiffs to file a motion for

27

leave to amend if they discovered new facts that would support a claim. (See 9/6/13 Order

28

Granting Motion To Dismiss Claim of False Arrest Against Defendant Marc Decoulode, Dkt. No.

1

180, at 3 [“Should Plaintiffs ascertain sufficient facts to state a claim for false arrest against

2

DeCoulode, they may file a motion for leave to amend specifically setting forth the allegations they

3

seek to add to the complaint and the authorities supporting liability based on such allegations.”].)

4

Plaintiffs failed to do so.

5

Moreover, as Plaintiffs concede in their opposition to the motion by Garcia and Obichere,

6

they have no claim against Garcia, and the amendments in the TAC did not include specific

7

allegations supporting a claim of false arrest against Obichere.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Further, Plaintiffs’ Third Motion for Leave To Amend Complaint (Dkt. No. 232) fails to
explain adequately the basis for amending to add the new allegations listed therein. That motion is
DENIED.
Should Plaintiffs seek leave to amend to add allegations against these or other defendants,

12

they are directed to file a motion no later than September 23, 2014. Such motion must sufficiently

13

set forth: (1) the new allegations; (2) the reasons those allegations address the defects identified in

14

any prior order related to claims against the named defendant(s); (3) the reasons for Plaintiffs’

15

delay in making the allegations; and (4) facts demonstrating that there is good cause for permitting

16

such amendment after the Court’s established deadline for amending the complaint.

17

This Order terminates Docket Nos. 221, 224, and 232.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

Date: September 18, 2014

_______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2