Klay v. Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office et al

Filing 45

ORDER VACATING MOTION HEARINGS AND SUBMITTING 32 , 42 PENDING MOTIONS WITHOUT ORAL ARGUMENT; GRANTING 42 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT; AND DENYING AS MOOT 32 MOTION TO DISMISS. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 2/9/2015. (blflc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2015)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 KRISTOPHER KLAY, Case No. 14-cv-00326-BLF Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 SANTA CRUZ COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, et al., Defendants. ORDER VACATING MOTION HEARINGS AND SUBMITTING PENDING MOTIONS WITHOUT ORAL ARGUMENT; GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT; AND DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO DISMISS 13 14 Before the Court are (1) a motion to dismiss the operative first amended complaint 15 (“FAC”) filed by Defendant City of South Lake Tahoe (“City”) and set for hearing on February 16 19, 2015; and (2) a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (“SAC”) filed by Plaintiff 17 Kristopher Klay and set for hearing on April 2, 2015. 18 Plaintiff’s proposed SAC attempts to cure the deficiencies raised in City’s motion to 19 dismiss the FAC and also adds new claims. City nonetheless urges the Court to proceed with 20 hearing its motion to dismiss on February 19 without consideration of Plaintiff’s proposed 21 amendments. City contends that if the Court were to permit the proposed amendment, City would 22 be prejudiced in that the case would be delayed and discovery that is under way would have to be 23 modified. City also contends that in any event the proposed amendments are futile and that 24 Plaintiff’s addition of new claims contravenes the Court’s verbal directions given at the last CMC. 25 The proposed amendments are not obviously futile. Nor does Plaintiff’s motion for leave 26 to add new claims contravene this Court’s directions. While the Court did comment at the CMC 27 that Plaintiff would not be permitted to add new claims if the FAC were dismissed with leave to 28 amend, the Court indicated that Plaintiff could file a motion for leave to amend to add new claims, 1 which is precisely what Plaintiff has done. The Court is sensitive to City’s concerns regarding 2 delay of the case. Having considered the matter carefully, the Court concludes that for reasons of 3 judicial economy and to avoid delay, the most sensible course is to vacate the hearings on the 4 pending motions, grant Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a SAC, and deny as moot City’s motion 5 to dismiss the FAC. Moreover, the Court will give City the option of noticing a new motion to 6 dismiss the SAC for April 2, 2015 – the date previously reserved for Plaintiff’s motion for leave to 7 amend – so long as City files its motion on or before March 5, 2015. Deadlines for opposition and 8 reply are fourteen and seven days, respectively, consistent with Civil Local Rule 7-3. 9 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: (1) City’s motion to dismiss and Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend are United States District Court Northern District of California 11 SUBMITTED without oral argument and the hearings on those motions are 12 VACATED; 13 (2) Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is GRANTED; Plaintiff shall file his SAC on or before February 11, 2015; 14 15 (3) City’s motion to dismiss the FAC is DENIED AS MOOT; and 16 (4) City may notice a motion to dismiss the SAC for April 2, 2015 so long as the 17 motion is filed on or before March 5, 2015. 18 19 20 21 Dated: February 9, 2015 ______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?