Opinion
CV-24-01171-PHX-DGC
10-15-2024
Shai Segui, Plaintiff, v. Stephanie Stromfors; Diana Vigil; Randy Rand; Julie Verner; Yvonne Parnell; Donna Moniz; and Building Family Bridges, Defendants.
ORDER
David G. Campbell, Senior United States District Judge
Plaintiff Shai Segui asserts civil rights and related claims against Defendants in the operative first amended complaint (“FAC”). Doc. 24-1. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, Plaintiff moves for leave to file a second amended complaint (“SAC”). Doc. 55. Attached to the motion is a redlined version of SAC reflecting the proposed amendments. Doc. 55-1. For reasons stated below, the Court will grant the motion to amend, deny as moot the pending motions to dismiss the FAC (Docs. 38, 40), and grant Defendants permission to refile updated motions to dismiss the SAC (see Docs. 59, 60).
Rule 15 provides that the Court “should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). The policy favoring leave to amend must not only be heeded, Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962), it must be applied with “extreme liberality,” Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001). Leave to amend may be denied on the basis of undue delay or bad faith on the part of the moving party, undue prejudice to the opposing party, or futility of the proposed amendment. Foman, 371 U.S. at 182. “The party opposing amendment bears the burden of establishing futility or one of the other permissible reasons for denying a motion to amend.” World Nutrition Inc. v. Advanced Enzymes USA, No. CV-19-00265-PHX-GMS, 2021 WL 632684, at *1 (D. Ariz. Feb. 18, 2021) (citation omitted).
Plaintiff seeks leave to amend to remove the claim against Dr. Raymond Branton, which has been voluntarily dismissed, and to add a civil rights claim against Defendants Randy Rand and Julie Verner. Doc. 55 at 1. No Defendant opposes amendment. Given the liberal standard for amendments under Rule 15, the Court will grant Plaintiff leave to file the proposed SAC. See Doc. 55-1. Plaintiff shall file the SAC, as a stand-alone document with no accompanying notice of filing (cf. Doc. 24, 24-1), by October 18, 2024.
“It is well-established in [this] circuit that an ‘amended complaint supersedes the [operative complaint], the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.'” Ramirezv. Cnty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted); see also Docs. 22 at 2, 59 at 2 (same). Because the motions to dismiss filed by Defendants Diana Vigil and Stephanie Stromfors target the FAC, which will no longer be in effect once the SAC is filed, the motions will be denied as moot. See id.
Defendants Vigil and Stromfors request permission to refile their motions to dismiss to apply to the SAC. Docs. 59 at 1-2, 60 at 2. The Court will grant the request, but will require that the refiled motions be updated with citations to the operative SAC and not the ineffective FAC. Defendants Vigil and Stromfors shall file the updated motions to dismiss the SAC by October 25, 2024. Plaintiff's responses are due by November 1, 2024, and any replies are due by November 8, 2024.
The Court sets an expedited schedule given that Plaintiff's allegations and claims against Vigil and Stromfors have not changeu and the briefing only needs to be updated with appropriate citations to the SAC and the document numbers for new briefing.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an SAC (Doc. 55) is granted.
2. Plaintiff shall file the SAC, as a stand-alone document with no accompanying notice of filing, by October 18, 2024. Defendants Vigil and Stromfors shall file updated motions to dismiss the SAC by October 25, 2024. Plaintiff's responses are due by November 1, 2024, and any replies are due by November 8, 2024.
3. The motions to dismiss the FAC (Docs. 38, 40) are denied as moot.