Opinion
2:20-cv-00497 WBS DB
03-08-2022
BRANDY WOOD, an individual, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SACRAMENTO, a municipal corporation; JASON WARREN in his individual capacity as a police officer for the Sacramento Police Department; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants.
ORDER RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
WILLIAM B. SHUBB, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Plaintiff Brandy Wood brought this § 1983 action against the City of Sacramento and Sacramento police officer Jason Warren, asserting various constitutional and state tort claims. (Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) (Docket No. 16).) Plaintiff's claims arise out of an injury she suffered, and other treatment she experienced, during a protest in 2019. (See id.) The case is now before the court on plaintiff's motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint. (Docket No. 29.)
Once the district court has issued a pretrial scheduling order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, which establishes a timetable for amending pleadings, that rule's standards control the court's analysis of whether leave to amend a pleading should be granted. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992). Under Rule 16, “[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4). The “‘good cause' standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609.
A party seeking amendment must also show that the amendment is proper under Rule 15, see Id. at 608 (citations omitted), under which leave to amend should be given “freely . . . when justice so requires, ” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). Leave should only be denied if amendment (1) would cause prejudice to the opposing party, (2) is sought in bad faith, (3) would create undue delay, or (4) is futile. Chudacoff v. Univ. Med. Ctr. of S. Nev., 649 F.3d 1143, 1152 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). “Because Rule 16(b)'s ‘good cause' inquiry essentially incorporates the first three factors, if a court finds that good cause exists, it should then deny a motion for leave to amend only if such amendment would be futile.” J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Maravilla, 2:12-cv-2899 WBS EFB, 2013 WL 4780764, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2013).
Plaintiff seeks leave to amend for the sole purpose of naming Sacramento police officer Leah Antonetti as a defendant instead of officer Warren. (See Mot. at 4 (Docket No. 29); SAC; Proposed Third Amended Complaint (Docket No. 31).) She does so on the grounds that (1) Antonetti is the proper defendant and (2) following an August 2020 request for production of documents, defendants failed until September 2021 to produce body-worn camera footage revealing that Antonetti is the correct defendant, preventing plaintiff from learning this information until then. (See Mot. at 2-3.)
In a declaration, plaintiff's counsel states that he asked defendants to stipulate to leave to amend, and that although defendants' counsel refused, they stated that they would not oppose a motion for leave to amend. (Decl. of Patrick Buelna at ¶¶ 11-12 (Docket No. 29-4).) The deadline to file an opposition has now passed, see L.R. 230, and defendants have not done so. Accordingly, good cause appearing, and because it does not appear that the proposed amendment would be futile, plaintiff's motion will be granted. See Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609; J & J Sports Prods., 2013 WL 4780764, at *1.
The parties have, however, since stipulated to dismiss Jason Warren as a defendant. (Docket No. 32.)
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint (Docket No. 29) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. Plaintiff is directed to file the Proposed Third Amended Complaint attached to the motion (Docket No. 31) within ten days of the issuance of this Order. The hearing on the motion set for March 21, 2022 is VACATED.