C.F. et al v. Lashway et al

Filing 72

ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' 64 Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint; Plaintiffs' amended complaint must be filed within seven (7) days of the date of this Order. Signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (SWT) Counsel is directed to e-file their Amended Complaint

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 11 C.F., et al., CASE NO. C16-1205RSM Plaintiffs, 12 13 14 v. LASHWAY, et al., ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 15 Defendants. 16 17 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File First Amended 18 Complaint. Dkt. #64. Plaintiffs filed suit in August 2016. Dkt. #1. In April 2017, Plaintiffs filed 19 20 a class certification motion and a motion for partial summary judgment. See Dkts. #18 and #21. 21 The Court denied both motions in June 2017. See Dkts. #58 and #59. Plaintiffs now seek to amend 22 their Complaint to remove a plaintiff and her next friend, revise their proposed class definition, 23 clarify allegations about Defendants’ funding allocation policies and practices, and to name 24 additional parties. Dkt. #64 at 1–2. Although Defendants do not oppose Plaintiffs’ removal of a 25 plaintiff and her next friend, they dispute the propriety of all other amendments proposed by ORDER – 1 1 2 Plaintiffs. See Dkt. #68 at 1–2. For the reasons discussed herein, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiffs’ motion. 3 Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure calls for the liberal amendment of 4 pleadings, “when justice so requires.” FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2). Freely granting leave “when 5 justice so requires,” is “to be applied with extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, 6 Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotes omitted). Thus, “[i]n the absence of any 7 apparent or declared reason—such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the 8 9 [plaintiff], repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue 10 prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of the 11 amendment, etc.,” parties should be allowed to amend a complaint. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 12 178, 182 (1962). The consideration of prejudice to the non-moving party carries the most weight 13 14 when a court decides whether to grant leave to amend. Eminence, 316 F.3d. at 1052. If the court does not find prejudice or “a strong showing” of the Foman factors, “there exists a presumption 15 16 17 under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Id. Plaintiffs demonstrate the interests of justice warrant allowing them to amend their 18 Complaint to remove Plaintiff J.P. and her next friend, to amend their proposed class definition, to 19 clarify allegations about Defendants’ funding allocation policies and practices, and to name the 20 Office of Financial Management (“OFM”) as a defendant. Plaintiffs’ motion to make these 21 changes is timely. The Court set December 1, 2017, as the deadline for the parties to amend their 22 pleadings and to join additional parties. Dkt. #63 at 1. Plaintiffs complied with this deadline by 23 24 25 moving to amend on November 22, 2017. See Dkt. #64. Plaintiffs’ motion to make these amendments is also not brought in bad faith; Defendants’ arguments to the contrary are ORDER – 2 1 unpersuasive, as they merely conclude, without explanation, that allowing the addition of a new 2 party “inherently includes new legal claims and theories.” See Dkt. #68 at 5. Defendants’ 3 contention that Plaintiffs’ statements about Plaintiff C.F. demonstrate bad faith are also 4 unpersuasive. See id. at 5–6. Whether or not Defendants have refused to provide Plaintiff C.F. 5 with SOLA services is in dispute, and the Court refuses to find that Plaintiffs’ inclusion of this 6 allegation in its proposed amended complaint is “intentionally deceitful and a clear attempt to 7 mislead the Court.” See id. 8 9 Defendants also fail to demonstrate the futility of Plaintiffs’ proposed amendments. A 10 proposed amended complaint may be futile if it is subject to dismissal. Moore v. Kayport Package 11 Express, Inc., 885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir. 1989); Lazuran v. Kemp, 142 F.R.D. 466, 467 (W.D. 12 Wash. 1991). Defendants contend Plaintiff L.B. lacks standing to pursue her claims for injunctive 13 14 relief because she is currently receiving services from a supported living provider. Dkt. #68 at 7. Defendants further argue that Plaintiff C.F. cannot seek injunctive relief because “Defendants have 15 16 17 offered to explore placing him in a Pierce County SOLA and he refused.” Id. at 8. Defendants’ arguments are unpersuasive. 1 When parties seek injunctive relief, they must demonstrate they are 18 “‘realistically threatened by repetition of [the violations alleged.]” Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 19 849, 860-61 (9th Cir. 2001) (alteration in original) (quoting City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 20 95, 109 (1983)). Here, notwithstanding Plaintiff L.B.’s receipt of services by a new supported 21 living provider, Plaintiff L.B. alleges that the policies which prompted her initial wait for services 22 23 1 24 25 Defendants also contend Plaintiffs’ proposed amendments are futile because they will not result in class certification. Dkt. #68 at 6–7. The Court finds this argument premature, as Plaintiffs propose revising their class definition and the Court cannot comment on how this revision, as well as Plaintiffs’ additional amendments, will affect Plaintiffs’ renewed efforts to certify a class. ORDER – 3 1 are still in place, and she alleges she remains at risk of institutionalization because of Defendants’ 2 failure to change these challenged policies. Dkts. #64, Ex. A at 5–6 and #70 at 5. The risk of 3 institutionalization pled by Plaintiff L.B. will withstand a motion to dismiss based on standing. 4 Defendants’ disagreement with Plaintiff C.F.’s allegations about Defendants’ refusal to provide 5 SOLA services also does not preclude Plaintiff C.F. from seeking injunctive relief. Plaintiff C.F. 6 alleges he remains institutionalized due to policies which deny him the provision of SOLA services 7 with reasonable promptness. Dkt. #64, Ex. A at 5. Because the Court must accept these allegations 8 9 as true, Plaintiffs L.B. and C.F. state plausible claims for relief. 10 Finally, Defendants fail to demonstrate they will suffer undue prejudice if Plaintiffs are 11 allowed to revise their class definition, allowed to amend their allegations about Defendants’ 12 funding allocation policies and practices, and allowed to add the OFM as a defendant. Given that 13 14 the parties have eight more months within which to conduct discovery, the Court finds that Defendants will not be prejudiced by the timing of these amendments. See Dkt. #63 at 1 (discovery 15 16 17 to be completed by August 6, 2018). Notwithstanding the propriety of the aforementioned amendments, the Court agrees with 18 Defendants that Plaintiffs’ attempt to add the Arc of Washington as an organizational plaintiff is 19 not timely and will prejudice Defendants. See Dkt. #68 at 3–4. When evaluating undue delay, the 20 court must “inquire ‘whether the moving party knew or should have known the facts and theories 21 raised by the amendment in the original pleading.’” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, 22 Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 953 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1388 23 24 25 (9th Cir. 1990)). Here, given the Arc’s alleged, long-standing history of advocating for individuals with intellectual disabilities, and their alleged receipt of complaints regarding Defendants’ failure ORDER – 4 1 to provide supported living services over the past few years, it is unclear why the Arc was not 2 added as a plaintiff earlier on. Plaintiffs make no attempt to explain why the Arc was not added 3 sooner. See Dkt. #70 at 2. Plaintiffs’ failure to address why they waited more than sixteen months 4 to add the Arc is telling, and leads the Court to conclude that this attempt to add a party is untimely. 5 The Court further finds that allowing Plaintiffs to add the Arc as a plaintiff at this stage will unduly 6 prejudice Defendants, as the Arc’s addition will necessitate an unexpected shift in discovery. The 7 Court will thus not allow Plaintiff to add the Arc as a plaintiff to this litigation. 8 9 Plaintiffs’ motion to amend is accordingly GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 10 Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint to remove Plaintiff J.P. and her next friend, to amend 11 their proposed class definition, to clarify allegations about Defendants’ policies and practices, and 12 to name the OFM as a defendant. Plaintiffs’ amended complaint must be filed within seven (7) 13 days of the date of this Order. 14 15 DATED this 10th day of January, 2018. 16 17 18 19 A 20 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 ORDER – 5

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?