Jimerson v. City of Hayward et al
Filing
33
ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting in part and denying in part 26 Motion to Amend/Correct. The Court VACATES the hearing set for January 17, 2017. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/13/2017)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
CHARLENE JIMERSON,
Case No. 16-cv-03176-YGR
Plaintiff,
7
v.
8
9
CITY OF HAYWARD, ET AL.,
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING
IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT
Re: Dkt. No. 26
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Plaintiff Charlene Jimerson’s complaint stems from the death of her son, Eugene Jimerson,
12
Jr. (“Mr. Jimerson”), who died while in City of Hayward police custody on April 12, 2015. On
13
December 9, 2016, plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order and for Leave to File
14
Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 26.) In her motion, Plaintiff seeks to add two new claims
15
regarding defendants’ alleged failure to accommodate Mr. Jimerson’s disability (schizophrenia),
16
as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
17
(RA). The proposed amendment also removes a claim that plaintiff is no longer pursuing: the third
18
claim based on the denial of Mr. Jimerson’s right to a familial relationship with plaintiff. On
19
December 22, 2016, defendant filed its opposition. (Dkt. No. 29.) Plaintiff filed her reply on
20
December 29, 2016. (Dkt. No. 32.)
21
Having carefully considered the parties’ submissions, the Court GRANTS IN PART and
22
DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order and for Leave to File an
23
Amended Complaint as follows:1
24
(1) Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint to remove the third claim based on the denial
25
26
27
28
1
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court
finds that this motion, which has been noticed for hearing on January 17, 2017, is appropriate for
decision without oral argument. Accordingly, the Court VACATES the hearing set for January 17,
2017.
1
of Mr. Jimerson’s right to a familial relationship with plaintiff is GRANTED; and
2
(2) Plaintiff’s motion to add two new claims regarding defendants’ alleged failure to
3
accommodate Mr. Jimerson’s disability under the ADA and RA is DENIED WITHOUT
4
PREJUDICE.
5
6
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff first filed suit alleging claims for violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth
7
Amendment, violation of the California Bane Act, battery, negligence, and wrongful death on June
8
10, 2016. (Dkt. No. 1.) Defendants answered the complaint on July 12, 2016. (Dkt. No. 12.) On
9
October 19, 2016, the Court issued its pre-trial scheduling order, which permits amendment of
pleadings only with Court approval. (Dkt. No. 21.) The discovery cutoff is September 29, 2017 for
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
both expert and non-expert discovery. (Id.) The deadline to hear dispositive motions is September
12
12, 2017. Id. A trial has been set for December 4, 2017. Id.
13
14
LEGAL STANDARD
The Court is granted wide discretion in the determination of pre-trial matters. Miller v.
15
Safeco Title Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 364, 369 (9th Cir. 1985). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
16
Procedure 16(b)(4), a pretrial scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the
17
judge’s consent.” Where a schedule has been ordered, a party’s ability to amend its pleading is
18
governed by this “good cause” standard, not the more liberal standard of Rule 15. Johnson v.
19
Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607–08 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Forstmann v. Culp, 114
20
F.R.D. 83, 85 (M.D.N.C.1987) (party seeking to amend pleading after date specified in scheduling
21
order must first show “good cause” for amendment under Rule 16(b) and, if “good cause” is
22
shown, the party must than demonstrate that amendment is also proper under Rule 15)). In order to
23
determine whether “good cause” exists, courts primarily consider the diligence of the party
24
seeking the modification. Id. at 609; see also Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294
25
(9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). Courts also consider five factors when assessing the propriety of
26
a motion for leave to amend: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of
27
amendment, and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint. Ahlmeyer v. Nevada
28
Sys. of Higher Educ., 555 F.3d 1051, 1055 n.3 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).
2
DISCUSSION
1
2
I.
PLAINTIFF MAY AMEND COMPLAINT TO REMOVE THIRD CLAIM
The Court finds that it is in the interest of judicial efficiency to permit plaintiff to amend
3
4
her complaint to remove a claim she will no longer be pursuing. Thus, the Court GRANTS
5
plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint to remove the third claim based on the denial of Mr.
6
Jimerson’s right to a familial relationship with plaintiff.
7
8
9
II.
PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE GOOD CAUSE TO ADD NEW CLAIMS
The standard for amending the scheduling order is “good cause,” which focuses on the
diligence of the moving party in pursuing the amendment. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. Diligence
examines the party’s “reasons for seeking modification.” Id. If the party has not shown it was
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
diligent, then “the inquiry should end.” Id. Plaintiff has failed to provide any rationale as to the
12
need for amendment in her motion papers. Furthermore, this case was filed six months before
13
plaintiff’s motion, and there was no indication from plaintiff at the case management conference
14
that she would need to amend. In support of her motion, plaintiff argues that “[t]his is the first
15
amendment the plaintiff is seeking, and no other amendments have been proposed between the
16
time plaintiff knew that her newly proposed claims for relief were plausible and the timing of this
17
amendment.” (Dkt. No. 26 at 4.) However, plaintiff does not explain why she only recently
18
learned that her newly proposed claims for relief were plausible by, for example, elaborating upon
19
any new discovery or case law that precipitated the motion. Thus, the Court finds that plaintiff has
20
not shown “good cause” for amendment exists.
21
22
III.
AMENDMENT WOULD BE FUTILE
A district court does not err in denying leave to amend where the amendment would be
23
futile or where the amended complaint would be subject to dismissal. Saul v. United States, 928
24
F.2d 829, 843 (9th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted). Futility of amendment alone can justify the
25
denial of a motion. Ahlmeyer, 555 F.3d at 1055 (citation omitted).
26
In addition to the foregoing, the Court is concerned with the lack of legal justification for
27
the proposed amendments. Plaintiff seeks to add two new claims regarding defendants’ failure to
28
accommodate Mr. Jimerson’s disability under the ADA and the RA. “To state a claim under Title
3
1
II of the ADA, a plaintiff generally must show: (1) she is an individual with a disability; (2) she is
2
otherwise qualified to participate in or receive the benefit of a public entity’s services, programs,
3
or activities; (3) she was either excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of the public
4
entity’s services, programs, or activities or was otherwise discriminated against by the public
5
entity; and (4) such exclusion, denial of benefits, or discrimination was by reason of her disability.
6
O’Guinn v. Lovelock Corr. Ctr., 502 F.3d 1056, 1060 (9th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted).
7
Similarly, to state a claim under the Rehabilitation Act, plaintiff must show (1) she is an individual
8
with a disability; (2) she is otherwise qualified to receive the benefit; (3) she was denied the
9
benefits of the program solely by reason of her disability; and (4) the program receives federal
financial assistance. Id. (citation omitted). The parties agree that “[t]here is no significant
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
difference in analysis of the rights and obligations created by the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act”
12
and that “courts have applied the same analysis to claims brought under both statutes.” Zukle v.
13
Regents of Univ. of California, 166 F.3d 1041, 1045 n.11 (9th Cir. 1999).
14
Plaintiff has failed to provide legal authority for its proposed amendment to include claims
15
under the ADA and RA. Under the instant circumstances, plaintiff has also failed to plead with
16
specificity the police conduct she contends was discriminatory, or to explain how such conduct
17
was discriminatory. Rather, in support of her motion, plaintiff has advanced what appears to be a
18
novel theory lacking in legal basis that—on its face—is improperly asserted against defendants in
19
their individual capacity. The Court finds it would be a waste of judicial resources to permit such
20
amendment and engage in subsequent motion practice without further clarification as to the legal
21
basis for plaintiff’s new claims.
22
CONCLUSION
23
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order and for
24
Leave to File Amended Complaint is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. This Order
25
terminates Dkt. No. 26.
26
27
28
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 13, 2017
______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
4
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?