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)

Download PDF
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

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?