Epstein v. Secretary Robert A. McDonald
Filing
23
ORDER granting Plaintiff's 14 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint. Court orders Plaintiff to file the Third Amended Complaint by 5/15/2017. Court terminates as moot Government's 9 Motion to Dismiss and 9 Motion to Strike. If Plaintiff fails to file her Third Amended Complaint by the aforementioned date, the Government may file an ex parte application requesting that Court reinstate its motions to dismiss and strike. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 4/21/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jah)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CHRISTINE MARTIN EPSTEIN,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
16
Case No. 16-cv-2929-BAS(WVG)
ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED
COMPLAINT
v.
[ECF No. 14]
SECRETARY ROBERT A.
MCDONALD, et al.,
Defendants.
17
18
On December 1, 2016, Plaintiff Christine Martin Epstein, who proceeds pro
19
se, commenced this action, individually and on behalf of her deceased brother, Peter
20
Elwood Martin, against Defendants Secretary Robert A. McDonald and the
21
Department of Veteran Affairs (collectively, the “Government”) for negligence and
22
professional malpractice in connection with the care provided to Mr. Martin. Ms.
23
Epstein amended her complaint twice, with the operative complaint being the Second
24
Amended Complaint (“SAC”). Ms. Martin now moves for leave to file a Third
25
Amended Complaint (“TAC”). The Government opposes.
26
The Court finds this motion suitable for determination on the papers submitted
27
and without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7.1(d)(1). For the following reasons, the
28
Court GRANTS Ms. Epstein’s motion.
–1–
16cv2929
1
I.
LEGAL STANDARD
2
Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that after a
3
responsive pleading has been served, a party may amend its complaint only with the
4
opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “The
5
court should freely give leave when justice so requires,” and apply this policy with
6
“extreme liberality.” Id.; DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th
7
Cir. 1987). However, leave to amend is not to be granted automatically. Zivkovic v.
8
S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Jackson v. Bank of
9
Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990)). Granting leave to amend rests in the
10
sound discretion of the district court. Pisciotta v. Teledyne Indus., Inc., 91 F.3d 1326,
11
1331 (9th Cir. 1996).
12
The Court considers five factors in assessing a motion for leave to amend: (1)
13
bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of the
14
amendment, and (5) whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.
15
Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Foman v. Davis,
16
371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). The party opposing amendment bears the burden of
17
showing any of the factors above. See DCD Programs, 833 F.2d at 186. Of these
18
factors, prejudice to the opposing party carries the greatest weight. Eminence Capital,
19
LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). However, absent prejudice,
20
a strong showing of the other factors may support denying leave to amend. See id.
21
22
II.
ANALYSIS
23
Though the Government carries the burden of demonstrating the Forman
24
factors, without relying on any legal authority, the entirety of the Government’s
25
argument opposing Ms. Epstein’s motion is as follows:
26
//
27
//
28
//
–2–
16cv2929
7
The United States submits that it is premature for Plaintiff
to file a TAC as the Court has yet to rule on the United
States’ Motion regarding the same issues of jurisdiction
and the immateriality of the same specific paragraphs
found in Plaintiff’s SAC. The Court should, therefore,
deny Plaintiff’s request for leave to file her proposed TAC.
In the alternative, the Court should stay ruling on
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend and allow the parties
to supplement their respective pleadings within two weeks
of its ruling on the United States’ Motion.
8
(Gov’t’s Opp’n 3:8-14.) The Government’s point appears to be a practical one:
9
because the relevant facts regarding jurisdiction and immateriality are the same in
10
the SAC and proposed TAC, the Court should first rule on the Government’s motions
11
to dismiss the SAC and strike non-relevant allegations before reaching Ms. Epstein’s
12
motion for leave to file an amended complaint.
1
2
3
4
5
6
13
Generally, the resolution of jurisdictional issues is of the highest priority when
14
an action commences. See, e.g., Leroy v. Great W. United Corp., 443 U.S. 173, 180
15
(1979) (“[N]either personal jurisdiction nor venue is fundamentally preliminary in
16
the sense that subject-matter jurisdiction is, for both are personal privileges of the
17
defendant, rather than absolute strictures on the court[.]). Despite there being a
18
general order of priority, it is not mandatory. See Sinochem Int’l Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia
19
Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 431 (2007). “[A] federal court has leeway to
20
choose among threshold grounds for denying audience to a case on the merits.” Id.
21
For example, “a district court declining to adjudicate state-law claims on
22
discretionary grounds need not first determine whether those claims fall within its
23
pendent jurisdiction.” Id. (citing Moor v. Cnty. Of Alameda, 411 U.S. 693, 715-16
24
(1973)). “Nor must a federal court decide whether the parties present an Article III
25
case or controversy before abstaining under Younger v. Harris[.]” Id. (citing Ellis v.
26
Dyson, 421 U.S. 426, 433-34 (1975)). In short, the decision to consider the
27
Government’s motion before Ms. Epstein’s, or vice versa, is within the Court’s
28
discretion.
–3–
16cv2929
1
Reviewing the circumstances of this case, the Court first notes that the
2
Government fails to carry its burden of demonstrating that the Foman factors weigh
3
in favor of denying Ms. Epstein’s Rule 15(a) motion. See DCD Programs, 833 F.2d
4
at 186. Though there may be substantial similarities between the SAC and proposed
5
TAC, it is important to first resolve which complaint is operative. If the Government
6
determines that the same challenges asserted in its motion apply to the proposed
7
TAC, it may re-file its motion.
8
The Government also requests in the alternative that the Court stay ruling on
9
Ms. Epstein’s motion and “allow the parties to supplement their respective pleadings
10
within two weeks of its ruling on the United States’ Motion.” (Gov’t’s Opp’n. 3:8-
11
14.) However, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d) only permits supplemental
12
pleadings “setting out any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened after the
13
date of the pleading to be supplemented.” See Eid v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 621 F.3d
14
858, 874 (9th Cir. 2010). Consequently, the Government’s alternative request
15
involving supplemental pleadings would be an improper use of supplemental
16
pleadings permitted by Rule 15(d).
17
18
III.
CONCLUSION & ORDER
19
In light of the foregoing, and exercising its discretion, the Court GRANTS
20
Ms. Epstein’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint based on the
21
Government’s failure to carry its burden under Rule 15(a). (ECF No. 14.)
22
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Ms. Epstein to file the Third Amended Complaint
23
attached to her motion no later than May 15, 2017.
24
Furthermore, in anticipation of Ms. Epstein filing her Third Amended
25
Complaint, the Court TERMINATES AS MOOT the Government’s motions to
26
dismiss and strike (ECF No. 9). See Valadez-Lopez v. Chertoff, 656 F.3d 851, 857
27
(9th Cir. 2011) (“[I]t is well-established that an amended complaint supersedes the
28
original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.”); see also Ortegoza v.
–4–
16cv2929
1
Kho, No. 12-cv-529-L(KSC), 2012 WL 5304859, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2012)
2
(Lorenz, J.) (citing Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 649 F.3d 1118, 1137 (9th Cir. 2011)
3
(“As a general rule, ‘[an] amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being
4
treated thereafter as nonexistent.’”). If Ms. Epstein fails to file her Third Amended
5
Complaint by the aforementioned date, the Government may file an ex parte
6
application requesting that the Court reinstate its motions to dismiss and strike.
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
9
DATED: April 21, 2017
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
–5–
16cv2929
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?