Jimenez v. Sambrano, et al

Filing 254

ORDER Granting 239 Motion to Amend Complaint to add a prayer for punitive damages and to dismiss Defendant E. Delgado; and Granting 253 Motion to Supplement Plaintiff's Reply to Defendants' Opposition to the Motion to Amend. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peter C. Lewis on 4/6/2009. (mjj) (jrl).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 INTRODUCTION Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding with pro bono counsel in a civil rights action IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALBERTO VERA JIMENEZ,

Case No. 04cv1833 L (PCL) Plaintiff, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendants. (Doc. No. 239)

v. R. SAMBRANO, et al.

20 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint upon which this action 21 proceeds on October 26, 2004. (Doc. No. 4.) Plaintiff now moves for an order seeking leave to 22 file a second amended complaint in this action. (Doc. No. 239.) 23 Plaintiff argues that filing a second amended complaint in this action is warranted to add

24 a prayer for punitive damages because such a prayer was previously omitted from the original 25 and first amended complaints solely due to Plaintiff's pro se status and lack of legal expertise. 26 (Id. P. & A, 1.) Plaintiff also seeks to dismiss Defendant E. Delgado from this action because all 27 claims against Defendant Delgado have already been dismissed or resolved by summary 28 judgment. (Id. at 2.)

1

Defendants counter that although a liberal view of granting such motions is generally

2 favored, to do so in this case would cause undue prejudice to Defendants due to the late stage of 3 the proceedings. (Doc. No. 245 Opp. 4.) Defendants further state that they "were never put on 4 notice that they would have to defend against a claim for punitive damages." (Id. at 5.) 5 Plaintiff's counsel has also filed a Motion to Supplement Plaintiff's Reply to Defendants'

6 Opposition to the Motion to Amend. (Doc. No. 253.) More specifically, Plaintiff seeks to 7 submit to the Court the parties' Pretrial Order dated June 23, 2008 in which the parties set forth 8 facts and contentions for trial. The relevant part of the Pretrial Order is Section XII which states: 9 "The trial of this case shall be bifurcated. The issues to be tried first are liability and general 10 damages. The issue to be tried second is the amount of punitive damages, if any are warranted." 11 Having considered all the arguments submitted for and in opposition to this Motion, the

12 Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint in this matter. 13 14 LEGAL STANDARD Plaintiff argues Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) is to be applied liberally in favor of

15 amendments and, in general, leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. See Janicki 16 Logging Co. v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir. 1994). However, because a pretrial 17 scheduling order has been filed in this action, resolution of this motion to amend is governed by 18 Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 19 F.2d 604, 607-608 (9th Cir. 1992). The Ninth Circuit has instructed that "[o]nce the district court 20 [had] filed a pretrial scheduling order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 which 21 established a timetable for amending pleadings that rule's standards controlled."1/ Id. Rule 16(b) 22 provides that "[a] schedule shall not be modified except upon a showing of good cause and by 23 leave of the district judge." Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 16(b). The pretrial scheduling order in this case 24 was filed December 1, 2006. (Doc. No. 113.) The Order sets forth the last date on which to file 25 1. Rule 16 provides in part: (b) [The district court] . . . shall, after consulting with the attorneys for the parties and any unrepresented parties, by a scheduling conference, . . . enter a 27 scheduling order that limits the time, (1) to join other parties and to amend the pleadings; (2) to file and hear motions; and (3) to complete discovery. FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b) (2009); Johnson v. 28 Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992). 26
04 CV 1833 L (PCL)

2

1 a motion to amend the pleadings as January 2, 2007. (Id. ¶ 1.) Therefore, the court considers the 2 present motion under the Rule 16 standard for amendment and secondarily under the standard of 3 Rule 15(a). See Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 607 (E.D. Cal. 1999). 4 While amendment of pleadings is ordinarily liberally granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a),

5 a movant must demonstrate "good cause" to justify amendment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). 6 Johnson, 975 F.2d at 606-07. The "good cause" standard "focuses on the diligence of the party 7 seeking amendment." Id. at 607 (citing Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609). "Central to the required 8 showing of diligence is whether the movant discharged [his] obligation under Rule 16 to 9 collaborate with the district court in managing the case." Jackson, 186 F.R.D. at 607. 10 Accordingly, relevant inquiries include: whether the movant was diligent in helping the court to 11 create a workable Rule 16 order; whether matters that were not, and could not have been, 12 foreseeable at the time of the scheduling conference caused the need for amendment; and 13 whether the movant was diligent in seeking amendment once the need to amend became 14 apparent. Id. at 608 (citations omitted). "[C]arelessness is not compatible with a finding of 15 diligence and offers no reason for a grant of relief." Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. However, the 16 district court is given broad discretion under Rule 16. Id. at 607. Although the existence or 17 degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification might supply additional reasons to 18 deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party's reasons for seeking 19 modification. See Gestetner Corp. v. Case Equip. Co., 108 F.R.D. 138, 141 (D.Me. 1985). 20 Moreover, if the trial court determines that refusal to allow a modification of the pretrial

21 order could result in injustice, while allowing the modification would cause no substantial injury 22 to the opponent and no more than a slight inconvenience to the court, modification is 23 appropriate. United States v. First Nat. Bank of Circle, 652 F.2d 882 (9th Cir. 1981). 24 25 DISCUSSION In interpreting the "good cause" requirement under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), the court

26 considers, primarily, "the diligence of the party seeking the amendment." Johnson v. Mammoth 27 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d at 609. As a secondary consideration, the court considers the degree 28 of prejudice to the opposing party. Id.
04 CV 1833 L (PCL)

3

1 A. 2

Diligence In this case, the initial complaint as well as the first amended complaint were filed pro se

3 and raised claims under 18 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his civil rights. (Doc. Nos. 1, 4.) 4 Plaintiff's counsel now seeks to file a second amended complaint raising the same claims with 5 the same factual allegations simply adding a prayer for relief in the form of punitive damages. 6 (Doc. No. 239.) The Court notes that the addition of a claim for punitive damages is not an 7 issue that has recently come to light. Plaintiff has already requested compensatory damages in 8 his first amended complaint and merely seeks to add an additional form of damages following a 9 favorable verdict at trial. However, Plaintiff has been markedly consistent in prosecuting this 10 action. The court docket presents a long history of timely filings and requests from Plaintiff as 11 to status and disposition of motions and other proceedings. It is apparent that Plaintiff's request 12 to amend the pleadings to add a prayer for punitive damages was prompted by a thorough review 13 of the current file and a desire to "tidy up the pleadings before trial." (Doc. No. 239 P.&A. 2.) 14 This is further evidenced by the fact that Plaintiff also seeks to dismiss one Defendant from any 15 participation in this case. 16 Moreover, the Court determines the prayer for punitive damages was likely omitted from

17 the previous complaint solely due to Mr. Jimenez' pro se status and lack of legal expertise and 18 not as a result of Plaintiff's carelessness. Plaintiff was appointed counsel by the trial court 19 shortly before the previously scheduled trial in this matter. This lends support to a finding of 20 "good cause" under Rule 16 to allow an amendment because Plaintiff's counsel now brings this 21 motion after a thorough review of the facts and issues set for trial. The Court finds that Plaintiff 22 and his newly appointed counsel have been diligent in this matter and have fulfilled the first part 23 of the requirement for "good cause" pursuant to Rule 16. 24 B. 25 Potential Prejudice to Defendants The Court now turns to whether potential prejudice to Defendants exists in allowing the

26 proposed amendment. Defendants' primary objection is that amending the complaint would be 27 prejudicial. Specifically, Defendants maintain that a prayer for punitive damages would hinder 28 their efforts to defend against Plaintiff's claims because they "were never put on notice that they
04 CV 1833 L (PCL)

4

1 would have to defend against a claim for punitive damages." (Doc. No. 245 at 5.) However, the 2 Court finds Plaintiff's evidence in support of such notice compelling. Plaintiff submits the 3 parties' Amended Proposed Pretrial Order, signed and submitted to the Hon. James M. Lorenz 4 on June 23, 2008. (Doc. No. 253 Ex. A.) The Pretrial Order clearly states: "The trial of this case 5 shall be bifurcated.[] The issue to be tried second is the amount of punitive damages, if any are 6 warranted." (Id. at 12.) This Order signed by Defendants' counsel appears to raise the issue of 7 punitive damages such that it was known to Defendants that they may have to defend against the 8 issue if warranted during the second phase of trial. Moreover, because the amendment sought 9 does not raise any new facts or allegations, the Court is not persuaded by Defendants' argument 10 that such amendment would be highly prejudicial to their trial preparations. 11 Defendants fail to put forth any persuasive reasons for not granting the motion to amend.

12 This is especially true in light of the fact that "Rule 16(b)'s `good cause' standard primarily 13 considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment." Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. Given 14 that plaintiff has met the diligence standard discussed above, any considerations regarding the 15 possible prejudice to defendants is outweighed. 16 C. 17 Rule 15(a) Analysis Lastly, "In deciding whether justice requires granting leave to amend, factors to be

18 considered include the presence or absence of undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, repeated 19 failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendments, undue prejudice to the opposing party and 20 futility of the proposed amendment." Moore v. Kayport Package Express, 885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th 21 Cir. 1989) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). Plaintiff has not shown an 22 instance of bad faith or dilatory motive in bringing this motion to amend the complaint to 23 include a prayer for punitive damages as Plaintiff's intention in amending the complaint is solely 24 to correct the complaint as to the damage claims previously sought and to remove parties no 25 longer involved in this litigation. The Court also determines no undue prejudice exists as to the 26 opposing party because Plaintiff is not seeking to add new claims or allege new facts with this 27 amendment. Moreover, the proposed amendment is not futile because the parties have already 28 agreed to litigate this issue in a second phase of trial, should it be required.
04 CV 1833 L (PCL)

5

1 2

CONCLUSION The Court concludes that the proposed amended complaint is appropriate to clarify the

3 damages sought in this matter and identify the proper parties before the Court. Most importantly, 4 the new complaint is not prejudicial to Defendants since it does not materially change the 5 substance of the claims. Lastly, the proposed amendment to dismiss Defendant Delgado serves 6 the interests of justice because all claims against Defendant E. Delgado have been dismissed or 7 summarily adjudicated. Therefore, because leave to amend should be freely given and 8 Defendants are not prejudiced, the motion for leave to file Second Amended Complaint is 9 GRANTED. 10 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 11 12 13 14 15 16 2. 1. Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement Plaintiff's Reply to Defendants' Opposition to the Motion to Amend (Doc. No. 253) is GRANTED; Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. No. 239) is GRANTED to add a prayer for punitive damages and to dismiss Defendant E. Delgado from all further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED.

17 DATE: April 6, 2009 18 19 20 21 cc: 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
04 CV 1833 L (PCL)

Peter C. Lewis U.S. Magistrate Judge United States District Court The Honorable James M. Lorenz All Parties and Counsel of Record

6