Hives vs. County of Alameda

Filing 81

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu granting 63 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying without prejudice 59 Motion for Summary Judgment; finding as moot 79 Stipulation re Expert Discovery. Plaintiff M.C. is ordered to E-FILE the third amended complaint by 8/8/2016. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/4/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

PATRICIA HIVES, et al.,

Case No. 15-cv-02490-DMR

Plaintiffs,
8

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS'
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

v.
9
10

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 63

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

The court has received Plaintiff M.C.’s motion for leave to file a third amended complaint.

14

[Docket No. 63.] The court finds this matter is suitable for resolution without oral argument and

15

VACATES the hearings set for August 11, 2016. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).

16

In his proposed third amended complaint (“TAC”), Plaintiff seeks to add a negligence

17

claim against Defendant Derek Thoms based on newly-discovered evidence. He also seeks to add

18

Oakland Police Officers Sergeant John Encinias and Lieutenant Roland Holmgren as defendants

19

based on the same evidence. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that “[t]he court

20

should freely give leave [to amend a pleading] when justice so requires.” “This policy is to be

21

applied with extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051

22

(9th Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted). In the absence of an “apparent reason,” such as undue delay,

23

bad faith or dilatory motive, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of the amendments, or

24

repeated failure to cure deficiencies in the complaint by prior amendment, it is an abuse of

25

discretion for a district court to refuse to grant leave to amend a complaint. Foman v. Davis, 371

26

U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Sols., Inc., 194 F.3d 980, 986 (9th Cir.

27

1999). Here, Defendants County of Alameda and Thoms argue that the court should deny Plaintiff

28

leave to amend on the ground that they will be prejudiced since fact discovery is now closed and

1

Defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment. The court finds that Plaintiff has shown

2

good cause for the amendment and will adjust the discovery deadlines and trial schedule to obviate

3

the prejudice to Defendants and account for the addition of new claims and new defendants in this

4

action. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is granted. Plaintiff shall e-file the proposed TAC by

5

August 8, 2016 and shall promptly serve Encinias and Holmgren with the summons and TAC.

6

The current case management schedule, including the trial date, is VACATED. All

7

parties, including Encinias and Holmgren, shall immediately meet and confer regarding an

8

adjusted case management schedule. The court will permit the parties to re-open discovery solely

9

regarding Plaintiff M.C.’s new claims, as well as the defenses of the newly added Defendants. By
no later than September 19, 2016, the parties shall submit a joint proposed case management

11

schedule, including fact and expert discovery deadlines, a deadline for dispositive motions, and

12

trial date.

13

Defendant County of Alameda and Thoms’s motion for summary judgment is denied

14

without prejudice. The court will consider a new or renewed motion for summary judgment in

15

accordance with the parties’ proposed trial schedule. The parties’ stipulation extending expert

16

discovery deadlines (Docket No. 79) is denied as moot.

R NIA

______________________________________
Donna M. Ryu
yu
United States nna M. R Judge
o Magistrate
D

NO

RT

ER

H

22

Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
2

FO

21

Dated: August 4, 2016

DERED

O OR
IT IS S

LI

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

A

19

UNIT
ED

18

S

17

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C