Alegre et al v. Contreras et al

Filing 27

ORDER denying #25 Plaintiff's Request for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. The Court DENIES Plaintiffs' request. At this juncture, the Court finds it appropriate to proceed with Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court sua sponte extends the briefing schedule on that motion. Plaintiffs' opposition is due no later than 7/12/2017. Defendants' reply is due 7/29/2017. No further extensions will be given. Pursuant to the Court's prior order, Plaintiffs' opposition may not exceed 35 pages. Defendants' reply may not exceed 15 pages. The hearing on this motion remains 8/10/2017, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 4A. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 6/27/2017. (acc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CINDY ALEGRE et al.,

Case No.: 16-CV-2442-AJB-KSC
Plaintiffs,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE
AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

SALLEY JEWELL, Secretary of the
Department of Interior, United States of
America, in her official capacity;
LAWRENCE ROBERTS, Assistant
Secretary of the Department of Interior Indian Affairs, United States of America,
in his official capacity; MICHAEL
BLACK, Director of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs of Department of Interior - United
States of America, in his official capacity;
AMY DUTSCHKE, Regional Director,
Department of Interior - Indian Affairs,
United States of America, in her official
capacity; JAVIN MOORE,
Superintendent of the Department of
Interior Indian Affairs, Southern
California Agency, in his official capacity;
DOES 1 through 25; US ATTORNEYS
OFFICE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
DISTRICT,

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

(Doc. No. 25)

Defendants.
1
16-CV-2442-AJB-KSC

1

Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ “request for leave” to file an amended

2

complaint. (Doc. No. 25.) Defendants have filed a notice stating their intent to oppose

3

Plaintiffs’ request should the Court entertain it. (Doc. No. 26.) Having reviewed the parties’

4

submissions and controlling legal authority, and pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1.d.1, the

5

Court finds the matter suitable for decision without oral argument. The Court DENIES

6

Plaintiffs’ request.
BACKGROUND

7
8

This dispute arises out of Plaintiffs’ contention that they are members of the San

9

Pasqual Indian Band. Plaintiffs instituted this lawsuit on September 28, 2016, by filing the

10

original complaint. (Doc. No. 1.) Defendants moved to dismiss that complaint on March

11

27, 2017. (Doc. No. 9.) In lieu of opposing Defendants’ motion, Plaintiffs filed the

12

operative amended complaint on April 11, 2017. (Doc. No. 13.) Given the amended

13

complaint, the Court denied as moot Defendants’ motion. (Doc. No. 14.)

14

On June 12, 2017, Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. (Doc. No.

15

20.) Plaintiffs were given until June 26, 2017, to oppose the motion. (Doc. No. 21.) Again,

16

instead of opposing the motion, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on June 26.

17

(Doc. No. 23.) The same day, the Court struck that order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

18

Procedure 15 for Plaintiffs’ failure to obtain Defendants’ consent or leave of Court.1 (Doc.

19

No. 24.) Plaintiffs thereafter filed the instant request for leave of Court to amend the

20

complaint. (Doc. No. 25.) The next day, Defendants filed a notice of their intent to oppose

21

Plaintiffs’ request should the Court entertain it. (Doc. No. 26.) This order follows.
LEGAL STANDARD

22
23

Rule 15(a) governs leave to amend prior to trial. A party may amend its pleading

24

once as a matter of course within 21 days after serving it; or, if the pleading is one requiring

25

a response, within 21 days after service of the responsive pleading or motion. Fed. R. Civ.

26
27
28

1

All references in this order to “Rules” are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2
16-CV-2442-AJB-KSC

1

P. 15(a)(1). “In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing

2

party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when justice

3

so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “Five factors are taken into account to assess the

4

propriety of a motion for leave to amend: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing

5

party, futility of the amendment, and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the

6

complaint.” Desertrain v. City of L.A., 754 F.3d 1147, 1154 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting

7

Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004)). These factors do not “merit

8

equal weight,” and “it is the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries

9

the greatest weight.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir.

10

2003) (per curiam). “Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining []

11

factors, there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.”

12

Id. (emphasis in original).

13

The grant or denial of leave to amend is in the Court’s discretion. Swanson v. U.S.

14

Forest Serv., 87 F.3d 339, 343 (9th Cir. 1996). “In exercising this discretion, a court must

15

be guided by the underlying purpose of Rule 15 to facilitate decision on the merits, rather

16

than on the pleadings or technicalities.” United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir.

17

1981). Consequently, the policy in favor of granting leave to amend is applied with extreme

18

liberality. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 181–82 (1962).

19

DISCUSSION

20

The Court finds that the weight of the Desertrain factors supports denying Plaintiffs’

21

request. While the Court “should freely give leave when justice so requires,” justice will

22

not be had if Plaintiffs’ request is granted. This is the second time Plaintiffs, when faced

23

with a motion to dismiss, strategically filed an amended complaint instead of opposing

24

Defendants’ arguments on the merits. This suggests bad faith. This fact is also relevant to

25

the fifth factor, specifically, whether Plaintiffs have previously amended the complaint

26

(they have). Furthermore, the complaints in this case are substantial. Defendants undertook

27

significant efforts to research and draft a succinct motion to dismiss in the face of a

28

complaint that exceeds 800 pages. To summarily deny Defendants’ motion on the basis of
3
16-CV-2442-AJB-KSC

1

Plaintiffs’ filing (again) would be prejudicial to Defendants. As such, this factor strongly

2

favors denying Plaintiffs’ request. Because prejudice to Defendants is accorded the greatest

3

weight, and because there is a strong showing on three of the five factors, the Court

4

exercises its discretion and DENIES Plaintiffs’ request.2
CONCLUSION

5
6

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ request. At this juncture, the

7

Court finds it appropriate to proceed with Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Court sua

8

sponte extends the briefing schedule on that motion. Plaintiffs’ opposition is due no later

9

than July 12, 2017. Defendants’ reply is due July 29, 2017. No further extensions will be

10

given. Pursuant to the Court’s prior order, Plaintiffs’ opposition may not exceed 35 pages.

11

Defendants’ reply may not exceed 15 pages. The hearing on this motion remains August

12

10, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 4A.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated: June 27, 2017

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

And finally, a Rule 15(a)(2) motion must be brought by noticed motion. Plaintiffs neither
contacted chambers to schedule their motion nor briefed the legal authority governing their
request.
4
16-CV-2442-AJB-KSC