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)
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?