Bondurant et al v. City of Battleground et al

Filing 63

ORDER granting 51 Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint and Denying as Moot 37 Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend Discovery, 40 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiffs' 50 Motion to Compel by Judge Karen L Strombom.(TW) The current pretrial scheduling order, including current trial date, is STRICKEN. Modified on 8/1/2016 (TW).

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

4
5
6

THOMAS BONDURANT and MICHELLE
BONDURANT, husband and wife,

7

Plaintiff,

8

v.

9
CITY OF BATTLEGROUND and the
BATTLEGROUND POLICE
DEPARTMENT,

10
11

Case No. 3:15-cv-05719-KLS
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND
DENYING ALL OTHER OUTSTANDING
MOTIONS

Defendant.

12
13
14
15
16

This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs’ second motion to amend their complaint to

17

include claims of defamation of character, racial discrimination, and malicious arrest.1 On May

18

26, 2016, the Court denied plaintiff’s first motion to amend their complaint because they did not

19
20

include a copy of their proposed amended complaint, but granted them the opportunity to re-file
their motion in accordance with the requirements of Local Rule LCR 15.2 As plaintiffs have now

21
22

done so, the Court ORDERS as follows:
Because plaintiffs have filed their amended complaint more than six months after

23
24

defendants filed their answer, they can amend their complaint “only with the opposing party’s

25
26

1

Dkt. 51.

2

Dkt. 28, 35.

ORDER - 1

1

written consent or the court’s leave.”3 Defendants have not provided written consent, and while

2

leave should “be freely given when justice so requires,” the decision to grant it is “within the trial

3

court’s discretion.”4 Because there is no indication that either the current named defendants or

4
5

those who have been newly named but not yet served will be prejudiced by allowing plaintiffs to
file their amended complaint,5 plaintiffs’ motion to do so is GRANTED.

6
In addition, because plaintiffs’ first amended complaint has not yet been served on all of

7
8

the named defendants, the amended complaint contains new and additional allegations of fact,

9

and a new pretrial scheduling order – setting new discovery, dispositive motion, trial and other

10

dates – will need to be issued upon completion of service and filing of an amended answer, the

11

following motions are DENIED as moot:

12

Plaintiffs’ motion to extend discovery;6

13
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel interrogatories and requests for production;7
and

14
15
16

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.8
In addition, the current pretrial scheduling order, including the current trial date,9 is STRICKEN

17
18

for the same reasons.
Plaintiffs should be aware, however, that they are responsible for effecting proper

19
20

service on all defendants who have not yet been served in this matter in accordance with

21
22

3

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15a.

4

23

Klamath-Lake Pharmaceutical Assoc. v. Klamath Medical Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276, 1292 (9th Cir. 1983); Fed.
R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

25
26

5

Dkt. 39.

6

24

Dkt. 37.

7

Dkt. 50.

8

Dkt. 40.

9

Dkt. 24.

ORDER - 2

1
2

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
DATED this 1st day of August, 2016.

3
4

A

5

Karen L. Strombom
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER - 3