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
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?