Georgallis et al v. United States of America et al

Filing 18

ORDER denying as moot defendant San Diego Police Department's 7 Motion to Dismiss, granting plaintiffs' 11 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. The motion hearing set for 12/5/2014 is vacated. Signed by Judge Marilyn L. Huff on 11/20/14. (kas)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14

ELIAS G. GEORGALLIS; and ELI,
INC.,

CASE NO. 14-CV-1825-H
(MDD)

Plaintiffs,
vs.

(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
AMEND COMPLAINT [Doc.
No. 11]; and

15
16

ORDER:

17

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT;
and DOES 1 through 50,

18

Defendants.

(2) DENYING DEFENDANT
SAN DIEGO POLICE
DEPARTMENT’S MOTION
TO DISMISS AS MOOT [Doc.
No. 7]

19
20

On August 4, 2014, Plaintiffs Elias G. Georgallis and Eli, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) filed

21 a complaint against Defendants the United States of America and the San Diego Police
22 Department (“Defendants”). (Doc. No. 1.) On September 8, 2014, the San Diego
23 Police Department filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims against the Police
24 Department. (Doc. No. 7.) On October 3, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
25 file a first amended complaint. (Doc. No. 11.) On October 24, 2014, the San Diego
26 Police Department filed a response in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion to file a first
27 amended complaint. (Doc. No. 15.) The United States does not oppose Plaintiffs’
28
-1-

14cv1825-H (MDD)

1 motion to file a first amended complaint. (Doc. No. 10 at ¶ 4.) The Court, pursuant to
2 its discretion under Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), determines that this matter is appropriate for
3 resolution without oral argument and submits Plaintiffs’ motion on the parties’ papers.
4 The Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion to file a first amended complaint and denies the San
5 Diego Police Department’s motion to dismiss as moot.

Discussion

6
7 I.

Legal Standard for Leave to Amend

8

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) allows a party leave to amend its pleading

9 once as a matter of right within twenty-one days after service of a responsive pleading.
10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Thereafter, “a party may amend its pleading only with the
11 opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court should freely give
12 leave when justice so requires.” Id. The Ninth Circuit has instructed that this policy
13 is “to be applied with extreme liberality.” Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan,
14 Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Morongo Band of Mission Indians v.
15 Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990)).
16

“The court considers five factors in assessing the propriety of leave to

17 amend—bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment,
18 and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the [pleading].” United States v.
19 Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Johnson v. Buckley, 356
20 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004)); In re W. States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust
21 Litig., 715 F.3d 716, 738 (9th Cir. 2013). The decision whether to grant leave to
22 amend “is entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court.” Pisciotta v. Teledyne
23 Indus., 91 F.3d 1326, 1331 (9th Cir. 1996).
24 II.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend

25

Here, there is no bad faith or undue delay in moving to amend at this time. The

26 Court does not perceive any prejudice to the opposing parties that would result from
27 Plaintiffs amending their complaint. Additionally, the United States does not oppose
28 Plaintiffs’ motion to amend. (Doc. No. 10 at ¶ 4.) Accordingly, the Court grants
-2-

14cv1825-H (MDD)

1 Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend. Owens, 244 F.3d at 712.

Conclusion

2
3

For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion to file a first

4 amended complaint. Accordingly, the Court denies the San Diego Police Department’s
5 motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 7) as moot and vacates the hearing set for December 5,
6 2014.
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8 DATED: November 20, 2014
9

_______________________________

10

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

14cv1825-H (MDD)