Estate of Gerardo Cruz-Sanchez et al v. United States of America et al

Filing 40

ORDER Granting 31 Motion for Amend Complaint. Plaintiffs must file their second amended complaint within three (3) days of the entry of this Order. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 10/2/2017. (knb)

Download PDF
1 FILED 2 I OCT -4 MIWM 3 4 DUSK* ,,t3dT 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 ESTATE OF GERARDO CRUZSANCHEZ, by and through his successorin-interest Paula Garcia Rivera; and PAULA GARCIA RIVERA, individually and in her capacity as successor-in-' interest, 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Case No.: 3:17-cv-00569-BEN-NLS ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT (ECF No. 31) Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; CORECIVIC, INC. formerly known as Corrections Corporation of America (CCA); C.Q. LANDIN, in his individual capacity; and DOES 1-30, inclusive, Defendants. 22 23 24 Plaintiffs have filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint. (Mot., ECF No. 25 31). They seek to file a second amended complaint to add factual allegations against 26 Defendants based on recent discovery previously unavailable to Plaintiffs. The second 27 amended complaint would constitute the first substantive change to the original 28 complaint, as Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint to correct the spelling of l 3:17-cv-00569-BEN-NLS 1 Defendant C.Q. Landin’s name. Plaintiffs have filed their motion to amend within the 2 deadline to file amended pleadings. 3 Defendant United States of America and Defendants CoreCivic, Inc. and C.Q. 4 Landin have filed responses to Plaintiffs’ motion. (USA Opp’n, ECF No. 33; CoreCivic 5 Opp’n, ECF No. 32). The United States does not oppose the motion to amend to the 6 extent it adds a claim against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act 7 (“FTCA”) based on a theory of medical malpractice. But the United States explains that 8 it “will not join in a motion to file a [second amended complaint] that contains ... other, 9 non-viable claims against the United States.” (USA Opp’n at 3). The United States 10 reserves its right to file a motion to dismiss to challenge these allegedly non-viable 11 claims. 12 CoreCivic, Inc. and C.O. Landin’s response does not oppose the motion to amend, 13 but asks that the Court strike proposed paragraph 115 if the Court grants the motion. 14 Paragraph 115 explains that CoreCivic has been sued in three federal lawsuits in June and 15 July 2017 related to a scabies outbreak in its Tennessee detention facility. Defendants 16 believe this language does not aid in curing any potential pleading defect and “serves 17 only to inflame and unfairly prejudice this Court and the potential jury pool.” (CoreCivic 18 Opp’n at 3). Plaintiffs reply that paragraph 115 is relevant to CoreCivic’s failure to 19 provide basic healthcare to Mr. Cruz-Sanchez. 20 After a responsive pleading is served, a “court should freely give leave [to amend] 21 when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The policy for granting leave should 22 “be applied with extreme liberality.” Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 23 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). In determining whether to grant leave, 24 a court considers “the presence of any of four factors: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to 25 the opposing party, and/or futility.” Id. In the absence of these factors, leave should be 26 freely given. Hall v. City of Los Angeles, 697 F.3d 1059, 1072-73 (9th Cir. 2012) 27 (reversing district court’s denial of leave for failure to meet and confer). 28 In this case, none of the four factors are present and the Court grants Plaintiffs’ 2 3:17-cv-00569-BEN-NLS 1 motion for leave to amend. Plaintiffs must file their second amended complaint without 2 paragraph 115 within three (3) days of the entry of this Order. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 6 Dated: October 17 Horn RbgefTT Benitez x United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ■ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 3:17-CV-00569-BEN-NLS

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?