Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01098/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01098-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ESTATE OF XANDER MANN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-01098-AWI-SKO

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO AMEND THE 

COMPLAINT

(Doc. 30)

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is Plaintiffs Estate of Xander Mann, Amy Pickering, and Justin Mann 

(collectively, “Plaintiffs”)’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint, filed April 8, 2022.

1

(Doc. 30.) Defendants County of Stanislaus, Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department, and Jeff 

Dirkse (collectively, “County Defendants”) filed an opposition brief on April 22, 2022. (Doc. 33.)

That same day, Defendant Gerardo Zazueta filed a separate opposition brief.2 (Doc. 34.) Plaintiff

filed a reply brief on April 26, 2022. (Doc. 35.) After having reviewed the parties’ papers and all 

supporting material, the matter was deemed suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant 

to Local Rule 230(g), and the hearing was vacated on May 13, 2022. (Doc. 41.)

For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint is GRANTED.

1 Amy Pickering and Justin Mann are the parents of decedent Xander Mann. (See Doc. 1 at ¶ 5.)

2 County Defendants and Defendant Zazueta will be referred to collectively as “Defendants.”

Case 1:21-cv-01098-MCE-JDP Document 50 Filed 07/07/22 Page 1 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

II. BACKGROUND

On July 19, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants, alleging violations of civil 

and constitutional rights arising out of the officer-involved shooting of 16-year-old Xander Mann. 

(Doc. 1.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Zazueta, a sheriff’s deputy employed by Defendants 

County of Stanislaus and the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department (“Deputy Zazueta”), 

“recklessly fired gunshots into a vehicle filled with teenagers, striking three persons and killing 

Xander Mann.” (Doc. 1 at 1.) Plaintiffs further allege that Defendant Dirkse, the Stanislaus County 

Sheriff, “immediately came to the defense of [Deputy Zazueta] and attempted to influence the 

public’s perception of the shooting in favor of law enforcement by releasing incomplete and 

misleading circumstances of the shooting, and downplaying or ignoring the several violations of 

policy committed by [Deputy Zazueta] during the course of the incident.” (Id.) 

On April 8, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for leave to file a first amended 

complaint (the “Motion”), primarily seeking to add Sergeant Darwin Hatfield of the Stanislaus 

County Sheriff’s Department as a defendant and to set forth the factual allegations underlying their 

claims against him.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standards

Generally, a motion to amend is subject to Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, which provides that “[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so 

requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). However, once a court has entered a pretrial scheduling order 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, the standards of Rule 16, rather than Rule 15, 

govern amendment of the pleadings. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 

607–08 (9th Cir. 1992). Under Rule 16, scheduling orders may be modified “only for good cause 

and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).

“Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking 

amendment.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. “If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” 

Id. “[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification,” 

although the “existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification might supply 

Case 1:21-cv-01098-MCE-JDP Document 50 Filed 07/07/22 Page 2 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

additional reasons to deny the motion[.]” Id. (citing Gestetner Corp. v. Case Equip Co., 108 F. R. 

D 138, 141 (D. Me. 1985)). If good cause is found, the court must then evaluate the request to 

amend in light of Rule 15(a)’s liberal standard. Id. at 608. 

Rule 15 provides that a party may amend its pleading only by leave of court or by written 

consent of the adverse party, and that leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 15(a)(1), (2). The Ninth Circuit has instructed that the policy favoring amendments “is to 

be applied with extreme liberality.” Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 

1079 (9th Cir. 1990). Although the decision whether to allow amendment is in the court’s 

discretion, “[i]n exercising its discretion, a court must be guided by the underlying purpose of Rule 

15—to facilitate decision on the merits rather than on the pleadings or technicalities.” DCD 

Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987) (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted).

The factors commonly considered to determine the propriety of a motion for leave to amend 

are: (1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, and (4) futility of 

amendment. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Loehr v. Ventura Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist., 

743 F.2d 1310, 1319 (9th Cir. 1984). “These factors, however, are not of equal weight in that 

delay, by itself, is insufficient to justify denial of leave to amend.” DCD Programs, 833 F.2d at 

186. “The other factors used to determine the propriety of a motion for leave to amend could each, 

independently, support a denial of leave to amend a pleading.” Beecham v. City of W. Sacramento, 

No. 2:07–cv–01115–JAM–EFB, 2008 WL 3928231, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2008) (citing 

Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 194 F.3d 980, 986 (9th Cir. 1999)). Of these 

factors, “prejudice to the opposing party is the most important factor.” Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 

902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990).

B. Analysis

1. Good Cause Under Rule 16

Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, the deadline to file motions requesting leave to amend the 

pleadings was February 28, 2022. (Doc. 21 at 2.) The instant Motion was filed on April 8, 2022. 

(Doc. 30.) As Plaintiffs seek to amend their complaint after the deadline set in the Scheduling Order, 

Case 1:21-cv-01098-MCE-JDP Document 50 Filed 07/07/22 Page 3 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

they must first satisfy the “good cause” standard under Rule 16(b)(4). Johnson, 975 F.2d at 608–

09. A moving party may demonstrate “good cause” by (1) diligently assisting the court in creating 

a workable Rule 16 order, see Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999); (2) 

explaining why circumstances beyond that party’s control prevented compliance, see Johnson, 975 

F.2d at 609; and (3) promptly and diligently seeking to amend the scheduling order, see Eckert Cold 

Storage, Inc. v. Behl, 943 F. Supp. 1230, 1233 (E.D. Cal. 1996).

The Court notes that Defendants do not address the issue of good cause in their oppositions. 

(See Docs. 33, 34.) Plaintiffs contend that their request for leave to amend their complaint is 

supported by good cause because their proposed amendments are based on facts and information 

obtained from discovery produced by Defendants on March 11, 2022, almost two weeks after the

February 28, 2022, deadline to amend pleadings. (See Doc. 30-1 at 6.) Furthermore, Plaintiffs 

assert that once they received the new information, they promptly filed the instant Motion less than 

a month later on April 8, 2022. (See id.) The Court finds that Plaintiffs acted diligently, thus 

establishing good cause to modify the Scheduling Order. See Est. of Thomas v. Cnty. of Sacramento, 

No. 2:20–CV–00903–KJM–DB, 2021 WL 5280991, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2021) (finding good 

cause under Rule 16 where the plaintiffs’ proposed amendments “incorporate[d] what they recently 

learned in discovery, and they filed their motion without delay. The defendants do not argue 

otherwise.”).

2. Foman Factors

Both of Defendants’ oppositions to the Motion are brief. (See Doc. 33 (5 pages); Doc. 34 (3 

pages).) County Defendants oppose the Motion on the basis of undue prejudice. (See Doc. 33.) 

Deputy Zazueta does not object based on any of the Foman factors; he instead contends that the 

proposed first amended complaint violates Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule 

8”), which requires that a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim.” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 8(a)(2). Having considered the parties’ contentions in light of the relevant legal standards, the 

Court concludes that leave to amend should be granted.

///

///

Case 1:21-cv-01098-MCE-JDP Document 50 Filed 07/07/22 Page 4 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

a. Undue Delay and Bad Faith

“Undue delay by itself is insufficient to justify denying leave to amend.” United States v. 

United Healthcare Ins. Co., 848 F.3d 1161, 1184 (9th Cir. 2016). Bad faith exists when the moving 

party seeks to amend merely to prolong the litigation by adding “new but baseless legal theories.”

Griggs v. Pace American Group, Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 881 (9th Cir. 1999). Here, Defendants do not 

claim that Plaintiffs acted with either undue delay or in bad faith in seeking amendment, nor is 

there any evidence before the Court of such behavior. As discussed above, the proposed 

amendments are based on information discovered after the deadline to amend pleadings, and 

Plaintiffs promptly moved to amend their complaint after receiving this information.

Accordingly, the absence of undue delay and bad faith weighs in favor of granting leave to 

amend.

b. Futility

“Leave to amend may be denied if the proposed amendment is futile or would be subject to 

dismissal.” Clarke v. Upton, 703 F. Supp. 2d 1037, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (citing Saul v. United 

States, 928 F.2d 829, 843 (9th Cir. 1991)). “[A] proposed amendment is futile only if no set of 

facts can be proved under the amendment to the pleadings that would constitute a valid and 

sufficient claim or defense.” Miller v. Rykoff–Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 1988).

“[P]roposed amendments are futile when they are either duplicative of existing claims or patently 

frivolous.” Murray v. Schriro, 745 F.3d 984, 1015 (9th Cir. 2014) (alteration omitted). “However, 

denial on this ground is rare and courts generally defer consideration of challenges to the merits of 

a proposed amended pleading until after leave to amend is granted and the amended pleading is 

filed.” Clarke, 703 F. Supp. 2d at 1043 (citing Netbula, LLC v. Distinct Corp., 212 F.R.D. 534, 

539 (N.D. Cal. 2003)).

Defendants do not assert that the proposed amendments are futile.3 Consequently, this factor

3

In a single sentence in his opposition, Deputy Zazueta contends that “the proposed First Amended Complaint includes 

irrelevant and redundant allegations, allegations that are not relevant to any claim (such as the post incident interview) 

and incorporation of one hundred and thirteen (113) paragraphs into each claim.” (Doc. 34 at 3.) This cursory assertion 

could be construed as an argument that the proposed amendments are futile, but the Court declines to take such a 

construction as Deputy Zazueta’s briefing raises only Rule 8 and makes no mention of the Foman factors. See Aramark 

Facility Servs. v. Serv. Emps. Int'l Union, Local 1877, AFL CIO, 530 F.3d 817, 824 n.2 (9th Cir. 2008) (arguments not 

adequately briefed are waived).

Case 1:21-cv-01098-MCE-JDP Document 50 Filed 07/07/22 Page 5 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

also weighs in favor of allowing the amendment.

c. Undue Prejudice 

“Prejudice results when an amendment would unnecessarily increase costs or would 

diminish the opposing party’s ability to respond to the amended pleading.” BNSF Ry. Co. v. San 

Joaquin Valley R. Co., No. 1:08–cv–01086–AWI–SMS, 2011 WL 3328398, at *2 (E.D. Cal Aug. 

2, 2011) (citation omitted). “Prejudice may be established in a variety of ways, such as where a 

motion to amend is made after the cutoff date for such motions, or when discovery has already 

closed or is about to close.” Lyon v. U.S. Immigr. & Customs Enf’t., 308 F.R.D. 203, 214 (N.D. 

Cal 2015) (citing Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002)); see also

Solomon v. N. Am. Life & Cas. Ins. Co., 151 F.3d 1132, 1138–39 (9th Cir. 1998). “The party 

opposing leave to amend bears the burden of showing prejudice.” U.S. v. Somnia, Inc., 339 F. 

Supp. 3d 947, 958 (E.D. Cal. 2018) (quoting Serpa v. SBC Telecomms., 318 F. Supp. 2d 865, 870 

(N.D. Cal. 2004)); DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987).

Deputy Zazueta does not claim that he will be prejudiced by the proposed amendments. (See 

Doc. 34.) County Defendants’ opposition to the Motion is based primarily on their objections to 

the allegations contained in paragraphs 48 through 55 of the proposed amended complaint, which 

allege a sequence of events involving decedent Mann prior to the shooting. (See Doc. 33 at 3–4.) 

Specifically, County Defendants contend that the allegations in those paragraphs are a “nonchalant 

mischaracterization of the facts[.]” (Id. at 2.) Accordingly, County Defendants assert that “[w]hen 

the complaint contains allegations which Plaintiffs should know are incorrect at this stage following 

discovery, any defendant [e.g., Sergeant Hatfield] who is otherwise entitled to move to dismiss claims 

is then unduly prejudiced when the standard requires that the court must assume [P]laintiffs’ allegations 

to be true.” (Id. at 4.) 

County Defendants’ claim of prejudice is unavailing. First, the “prejudice” alleged by County 

Defendants is not of the type usually cognizable by the courts. Typically, “a court evaluates prejudice 

in terms of, e.g., whether discovery cut-offs have passed, how close trial is, and so forth.” Yates v. Auto 

City 76, 299 F.R.D. 611, 614 (N.D. Cal. 2013). Second, the Court is not convinced that County 

Defendants have shown any prejudice at all. It is axiomatic that Plaintiffs are the masters of their 

Case 1:21-cv-01098-MCE-JDP Document 50 Filed 07/07/22 Page 6 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

complaint, see Williams v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 786 F.2d 928 (9th Cir. 1986), aff’d but criticized 

sub nom. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987), and Plaintiffs are free to present their 

version of the facts in their pleading. Sergeant Hatfield will, of course, be “entitled to move to dismiss 

[the] claims” against him under Rule 12(b)(6) (see Doc. 33 at 4), but he is not entitled to a ruling in his 

favor on those grounds. The motion to dismiss standard is inherently more favorable to the plaintiff, 

requiring the Court to accept the plaintiff’s factual allegations as true.

4

See Interpipe Contracting, 

Inc. v. Becerra, 898 F.3d 879, 886–87 (9th Cir. 2018). The Court’s application of this legal standard 

cannot be a basis for prejudice. Indeed, County Defendants have not identified any case authority 

recognizing their claimed “prejudice” as a basis for denying leave to amend. 

The Court also observes that County Defendants do not make any contentions that they 

themselves will be prejudiced if the Motion is granted—only that Sergeant Hatfield, who is not yet 

a party to the action, might be prejudiced. Therefore, in the absence of any showing of undue 

prejudice to Defendants, the Court finds that this Foman factor militates in favor granting the 

proposed amendments.

3. Rule 8

Under Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing 

that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “[T]he ‘short and plain statement’ 

must provide each defendant with ‘fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon 

which it rests.’ ” Dura Pharms., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 346 (2005). Deputy Zazueta contends 

that the Motion should be denied because the proposed first amended complaint “includes irrelevant 

and redundant allegations” and thus violates Rule 8. (See Doc. 34.) Specifically, Deputy Zazueta 

notes that the proposed amended complaint is excessively long, as the “allegations have ballooned 

from twenty eight (28) pages and one hundred thirty (130) paragraphs as asserted in the original 

complaint . . . to thirty six (36) pages and one hundred seventy four (174) paragraphs,” and the 

proposed complaint incorporates 113 paragraphs into each claim. (Id. at 1, 3) 

4 Any dispute about whether Plaintiffs’ complaint is borne out by the evidence is more properly raised via motion for 

summary judgment.

Case 1:21-cv-01098-MCE-JDP Document 50 Filed 07/07/22 Page 7 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

In support of his positions, Deputy Zazueta cites to several cases, some out of circuit, where 

the complaint was dismissed for violating Rule 8. (See Doc. 34 at 2–3.) Those cases, however, are 

distinguishable because they concern motions to dismiss as opposed to a motion to amend. See 

Eisenstecken v. Tahoe Reg’l Plan. Agency, No. 2:20–CV–02349–TLN–CKD, 2022 WL 956694, at 

*6 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2022) (declining to “decide whether [the plaintiffs’] Proposed SAC violates 

Rule 8(a) as the issue has not been adequately briefed in a Rule 8(a) motion to dismiss,” where a 

motion to amend the complaint was before the court). Accordingly, the Court declines to consider 

whether the proposed first amended complaint violates Rule 8 at this time. “If Defendants wish to 

challenge the sufficiency of the pleading, either for prolixity or for the allegedly confusing 

combination of . . . claims, they can file a motion pursuant to Rule 8(a) and those arguments will be 

considered at that time.” Eisenstecken, 2022 WL 956694, at *7.

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

As discussed above, Plaintiffs have demonstrated good cause to amend the Scheduling 

Order, and all the applicable Foman factors favor allowing Plaintiffs’ proposed amendments. 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a first amended complaint (Doc. 30) is GRANTED. 

Plaintiffs shall file their First Amended Complaint, which is attached as Exhibit A to counsel 

Mark E. Merin’s declaration in support of the Motion (Doc. 30-2, Ex. A),

5 by no later than 

three days from the date of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 7, 2022 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5 A clean copy of the First Amended Complaint shall be filed with the Court.

Case 1:21-cv-01098-MCE-JDP Document 50 Filed 07/07/22 Page 8 of 8