The Estate of Ruben Nunez et al v. County of et al

Filing 72

ORDER Granting Plaintiffs' 58 Ex Parte Motion to Amend Complaint. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 2/28/2017. (knb)

i

t/

1

Ft LSD

2

17 MAR-I PM 2* 11

3
4

IRiMSMI

5

m

(HU s®w»

6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

THE ESTATE OF RUBEN, et al.,

Case No.: 3:16-cv-1412-BEN-MDD

Plaintiffs,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ EX
PARTE MOTION TO AMEND
COMPLAINT

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16
17

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,

18

Cross Claimants,

19

v.

20

CORRECTIONAL PHYSICIANS
MEDIAL GROUP, INC., et al.,

21

■Cross Defendants.

22
23

On February 14, 2017, Plaintiffs timely1 filed an Ex Parte Motion to Amend

24

Complaint. (Docket No. 58.) For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs’ Motion is DENIED.

25
26
27
28

i

Pursuant to the Court’s February 7, 2017 Order, which granted in part the parties’
request to continue the scheduling order, Plaintiffs had until February 14, 2017 to file a
motion to amend their complaint. (Docket No. 56.)
l
3:16-cv-1412-BEN-MDD

It'

*v

1

Before trial, and after the time has elapsed for which a party may amend its

2

pleading as a matter of course, Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

3

provides that: “a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written

4

consent or the court's leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Leave to amend under Rule 15(a)(2)

5

should be “freely give[n]... when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

6

Courts consider “undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure

7

deficiencies by previous amendments, undue prejudice to the opposing party, and futility

8

of the proposed amendment” in deciding whether justice requires granting leave to amend

9

under Rule 15. Moore v. Kayport Package Express, Inc., 885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir.

10

1989) (citing Foman v. Davis, 370 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). Although each factor may

11

warrant consideration, “prejudice to the opposing party ... carries the greatest weight.”

12

Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052.

13

Plaintiffs’ Motion lacks any explanation as to why they should be granted leave.

14

Although Plaintiffs represent that “Defendants do not oppose the filing of the amended

15

complaint,” (docket no. 58 at 3), one day after it was filed, Defendants filed Oppositions

16

stating they opposed the Motion, and that the proposed amended complaint would cause

17

undue prejudice or was futile. (Docket Nos. 59-60.) Additionally, as the Court noted in

18

its February 7, 2017 Order, this case has experienced significant delays due to the parties’

19

multiple requests for extensions of time without apparent good cause. (Docket No. 56.)

20

In sum, Plaintiffs have not met Rule 15(a)(2)’s requirement to obtain consent to

21

amendment by the opposing parties, or demonstrated why justice requires the Court to

22

grant them leave. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend

23

Complaint is DENIED.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26
27

DATED:

,2017
HON. ROQERrT. BENITEZ
United States District Judge

28
2
3:16-cv-1412-BEN-MDD