Trulove v. San Francisco et al

Filing 116

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting 106 Motion to Amend ; Plaintiff Trulove is required to E-FILE the amended document. Amended Pleadings due by 2/13/2017. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 6 JAMAL RASHID TRULOVE, 7 Plaintiff, 8 9 10 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT v. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al., Defendants. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No.: 16-CV-00050 YGR Plaintiff Jamal Rashid Trulove brings this action against six members of the San Francisco 12 Police Department and the City and County of San Francisco (collectively, “Defendants”). 13 Trulove’s operative complaint alleges claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 based upon: fabrication 14 of evidence and Brady suppression (Count I), malicious prosecution (Count II), conspiracy (Count 15 III), Tatum suppression (Count IV), and supervisory liability (Count V). Trulove has filed a 16 Motion for Leave to Amend his Complaint (Dkt. No. 106) to add two additional defendants— 17 Evans and Shouldice—to Counts I through IV, based upon defendants’ recent discovery production 18 of a San Francisco Police Department study (“SFPD Study”) on shell casing dispersal. Based on 19 this information, Trulove also seeks to amend to allege additional bases for supervisory liability 20 (Count V) against existing defendants D’Amico and Johnson. 21 Having carefully considered the papers submitted and the pleadings in this action, and for 22 the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. 23 I. APPLICABLE STANDARD 24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that “[t]he court should freely give leave [to 25 amend the complaint] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The Ninth Circuit has 26 held that requests for leave to amend should be granted with “extreme liberality.” Moss v. U.S. 27 Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 972 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 28 1 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001). The court considers the following factors in deciding whether to 2 grant leave to amend: (1) whether the amendment was filed with undue delay; (2) whether the 3 movant has requested the amendment in bad faith; (3) whether the amendment will unduly 4 prejudice the opposing party; and (4) whether the amendment is futile. See Lockheed Martin Corp. 5 v. Network Solutions, 194 F.3d 980, 986 (9th Cir. 1999); Griggs v. Pace Am. Grp., Inc., 170 F.3d 6 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999); DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir.1987); 7 Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 8 II. 9 DISCUSSION The Court has considered the arguments presented by the parties and finds that the amendment was not filed with undue delay or requested in bad faith. Defendants produced the 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 SFPD Study on November 18, 2016, and Trulove filed his motion on January 6, 2017. Trulove 12 could not allege claims in good faith against John Evans and Ronan Shouldice until he received 13 defendants’ discovery production of the SFPD Study. 14 Defendants contend the proposed amendments would be futile. “An amendment is futile 15 when ‘no set of facts can be proved under the amendment to the pleadings that would constitute a 16 valid and sufficient claim or defense.’” Missouri ex rel. Koster v. Harris, __ F.3d __, No. 14- 17 17111, 2017 WL 361934, at *6 (9th Cir. Jan. 17, 2017) (quoting Miller v. Rykoff–Sexton, Inc., 845 18 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 1988)). The Court does not find the proposed amendment to be futile under 19 this standard. Courts generally defer consideration of challenges to the merits of a proposed 20 amended pleading until after it is filed. See Netbula, LLC v. Distinct Corp., 212 F.R.D. 534, 538– 21 39 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (citing Miller, 845 F.2d at 214). Defendants may challenge the new claims 22 through a motion to dismiss. 23 The Court is cognizant that amendment of the complaint has the potential for prejudice to 24 defendants under the current schedule. The schedule provides that non-expert discovery closes 25 April 7, 2017, expert discovery closes May 19, 2017, and trial would begin October 30, 2017. 26 Further, defendants have indicated they may move to dismiss the new claims if the complaint is 27 amended. To the extent amendment of the complaint would create any prejudice under the current 28 2 1 schedule, the Court will consider an appropriate continuance of the discovery and trial dates if the 2 anticipated motions to dismiss are denied. 3 III. 4 5 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Trulove’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is GRANTED as follows: 6 Trulove shall file and serve a Second Amended Complaint no later than February 13, 2017. 7 However, the proposed Second Amended Complaint will not suffice. Instead, Trulove is ORDERED 8 to file an amended complaint containing only the operative claims and defendants consistent, with 9 the Court’s prior order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 86, “MTD Order.”) Trulove’s prior allegations and opposition to 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 the motion to dismiss are preserved for appeal. The operative Second Amended Complaint should 12 not require the Court to compare multiple documents to determine which claims, against which 13 defendants, are at issue going forward. 14 Defendants are also cautioned, in light of their failure to file an answer to the First Amended 15 Complaint consistent with the MTD Order (i.e., by November 9, 2016), that future similar failures 16 may be met with appropriate sanctions. Because this Order will not change the allegations against 17 them, defendants Androvich, Hagen, McMillan and Trail shall file their answer to the Second 18 Amended Complaint no later than February 21, 2017. 19 20 21 Defendants Evans and Shouldice shall respond to the allegations against them by February 28, 2017. Defendants D’Amico and Johnson shall: (1) answer the allegations against them with 22 respect to the previously alleged claims; and (2) file a response to the new allegations no later than 23 February 28, 2017. 24 This terminates Docket No. 106. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27 Date: February 9, 2017 _______________________________________ YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 28 3

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?