Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01111/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01111-3/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 1

Plaintiffs suggest that their prior counsel, whose motion to withdraw was granted in May

2007, is to blame for their failure to amend. (Mot. to Amend at 2.)

- 1 - 06cv1111

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BENNY RAMIREZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 06 CV 1111 JM (JMA)

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO

vs. AMEND COMPLAINT

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,

Defendants.

This lawsuit arises out of the alleged fatal shooting of Jorge Ramirez by defendant Mark

Ritchie, a San Diego County Sheriff Deputy. On August 31, 2006, the court granted Defendants’

motion to dismiss or strike portions of the complaint. Although the court granted 20 days’ leave to

amend regarding some of the claims, Plaintiffs never amended their complaint.1

 Defendants filed an

answer on September 28, 2006. Plaintiffs now move for leave to amend their complaint, seeking to

set forth “a more factually complete presentation of the claims stated in the original complaint” which

survived the motion to dismiss and to strike. (Mot. to Amend at 3.) Defendants have filed a notice

of non-opposition to the motion. (See Docket no. 46.)

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) allow amendment of a pleading once as a

matter of right “at any time before a responsive pleading is served . . . . Otherwise a party may amend

the party’s pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall

Case 3:06-cv-01111-JM-JMA Document 48 Filed 11/19/07 Page 1 of 2
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 - 06cv1111

be freely given when justice so requires.” FRCP R. 15(a). Defendants’ statement of non-opposition

operates as their written consent to amendment under Rule 15(a). The court also finds that Plaintiffs

have demonstrated good cause for amendment. The court therefore GRANTS Plaintiffs leave to file

the proposed first amended complaint attached to their motion as Exhibit 1 to the declaration of

Maurizio A. Mangini.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 19, 2007

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

Case 3:06-cv-01111-JM-JMA Document 48 Filed 11/19/07 Page 2 of 2