The Estate of Ruben Nunez et al v. County of et al
ORDER Granting Plaintiffs' 58 Ex Parte Motion to Amend Complaint. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 2/28/2017. (knb)
17 MAR-I PM 2* 11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
THE ESTATE OF RUBEN, et al.,
Case No.: 3:16-cv-1412-BEN-MDD
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ EX
PARTE MOTION TO AMEND
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,
MEDIAL GROUP, INC., et al.,
On February 14, 2017, Plaintiffs timely1 filed an Ex Parte Motion to Amend
Complaint. (Docket No. 58.) For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs’ Motion is DENIED.
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.)
Before trial, and after the time has elapsed for which a party may amend its
pleading as a matter of course, Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
provides that: “a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written
consent or the court's leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Leave to amend under Rule 15(a)(2)
should be “freely give[n]... when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
Courts consider “undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure
deficiencies by previous amendments, undue prejudice to the opposing party, and futility
of the proposed amendment” in deciding whether justice requires granting leave to amend
under Rule 15. Moore v. Kayport Package Express, Inc., 885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir.
1989) (citing Foman v. Davis, 370 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). Although each factor may
warrant consideration, “prejudice to the opposing party ... carries the greatest weight.”
Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052.
Plaintiffs’ Motion lacks any explanation as to why they should be granted leave.
Although Plaintiffs represent that “Defendants do not oppose the filing of the amended
complaint,” (docket no. 58 at 3), one day after it was filed, Defendants filed Oppositions
stating they opposed the Motion, and that the proposed amended complaint would cause
undue prejudice or was futile. (Docket Nos. 59-60.) Additionally, as the Court noted in
its February 7, 2017 Order, this case has experienced significant delays due to the parties’
multiple requests for extensions of time without apparent good cause. (Docket No. 56.)
In sum, Plaintiffs have not met Rule 15(a)(2)’s requirement to obtain consent to
amendment by the opposing parties, or demonstrated why justice requires the Court to
grant them leave. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend
Complaint is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
HON. ROQERrT. BENITEZ
United States District Judge
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?