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)

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