L.K.M. et al v. Bethel School District et al

Filing 66

ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' 44 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, signed by Judge Benjamin H. Settle. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' request to amend the caption and remove McKeeman as a defendant and DENIES Plaintiffs' request to add Haugen as a defendant. Counsel is directed to e-file their Amended Complaint. (KMC)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7
8
9
10

CASE NO. C18-5345 BHS

L.K.M. et al.,
v.

Plaintiffs,

BETHEL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.,

11

ORDER GRANTING IN PART
AND DENYING IN PART
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT

Defendants.

12
13
14
15

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend
complaint and change caption. Dkt. 44.
On September 3, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint

16

to remove former-Defendant Nancy McKeeman (“McKeeman”) and add proposed-

17

defendant Lori Haugen (“Haugen”). Id. Plaintiffs wish to amend their complaint to

18

include Haugen in their “§ 1983 causes of action based upon her personal liability.” Id. at

19

5. However, the Court granted summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims against

20

the Individual Defendants in this action, concluding that the Individual Defendants are

21

entitled to qualified immunity. Dkt. 65 at 7, 8. A court may deny leave to amend “where

22

the amendment would be futile . . . or where the amended complaint would be subject to

ORDER - 1

1

dismissal. Saul v. United States, 928 F.2d 829, 843 (9th Cir. 1991). “[A] proposed

2

amendment is futile only if no set of facts can be proved under the amendment to the

3

pleadings that would constitute a valid and sufficient claim or defense.” Miller v. Rukoff-

4

Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 2019, 214 (9th Cir. 1988), overruled on other grounds by Ashcroft

5

v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). Because the Court has previously found that Plaintiffs’

6

cannot maintain a § 1983 claim due to qualified immunity, Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to

7

amend is futile.

8

Plaintiffs also request leave to change the caption and remove McKeeman

9

pursuant to the parties’ stipulated motion. See Dkts. 24, 25. Defendants have not objected

10
11

to this proposed amendment. See Dkt. 47.
Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ request to add Haugen as a defendant

12

and GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request to amend the caption and remove McKeeman as a

13

defendant.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated this 19th day of April, 2021.

16

A

17

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 2