Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00461/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00461-1/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 - 11cv461 WQH (CAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SWIFT FRAME, a partnership,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv461 WQH (CAB)

ORDER

vs.

CITY OF SAN DIEGO, a Municipal

Corporation; DOES, 1 through 50,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matters before the Court are the Motion to for Leave to File Third Amended

Complaint (ECF No. 26) and the Motion to Remand (ECF No. 25) filed by Plaintiff Swift

Frame. 

I. Background

On March 7, 2011, Defendant initiated this action by removing a case that had been

filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego to this Court pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal question jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1). The operative complaint was

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint which asserted claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

for (1) taking without just compensation and violation of due process pursuant to the Fifth and

Fourteenth Amendments regarding the City’s refusal to refund the illegal taxes, (2) violation

of due process pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments regarding the City’s failure

to provide a “pre- or post-deprivation remedy” on the grounds that tax payers had to “pay first,

Case 3:11-cv-00461-WQH-CAB Document 33 Filed 01/23/12 Page 1 of 4
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 - 11cv461 WQH (CAB)

sue later” and the City denied Plaintiff’s administrative claim for a refund “without legal

basis,” and (3) violation of equal protection pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment regarding

the City’s refund to landlords but not businesses. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages comprised

of a “[r]eturn ... of all Processing Taxes paid by [the] Plaintiff, with interest” as well as

attorney’s fees and cost of suit. (ECF No. 1-6 at 28). 

Defendant City of San Diego filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint

pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

and 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 3). 

On September 20, 2011, the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended

Complaint concluding that “pursuant to the doctrine of comity, the facts alleged in the

Complaint do not support the exercise of subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s [§ 1983]

claims.” (ECF No. 22 at 9). The Court stated: “Plaintiff may file a motion for leave to file a

Third Amended Complaint, accompanied by a proposed Third Amended Complaint ....” Id.

On November 11, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion to for Leave to File Third Amended

Complaint. (ECF No. 26). Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Remand. (ECF No. 25). On

December 15, 2011, Defendant filed an Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File

Third Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 31). On December 22, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Reply.

(ECF No. 32). 

II. Contentions of the Parties

Plaintiff seeks leave to file a Third Amended Complaint “to replace the federal causes

of action that this Court dismissed with state causes of action.” (ECF No. 26-1 at 1). Plaintiff

contends that the amendment is necessary to “preserve Plaintiff’s right to his remedies ... to

recover against Defendant City for refund of illegally collected taxes.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff

contends that he has asserted valid state law claims. 

Defendant contends that leave to file a Third Amended Complaint should not be given

on the grounds that the Complaint “alleges recycled and rejected legal theories that will

ultimately prove futile.” (ECF No. 31 at 1). Defendant contends that Plaintiff has made

“numerous attempts to state any sort of cognizable cause of action,” but has failed to do so.

Case 3:11-cv-00461-WQH-CAB Document 33 Filed 01/23/12 Page 2 of 4
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 - 11cv461 WQH (CAB)

Id. at 2. Defendant contends that “the Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint

should be denied. However, if the Court were to disagree, the City has no opposition to this

matter being returned to the Superior Court as the proposed Third Amended Complaint only

contains state law claims.” Id. at 1 n.1. 

III. Discussion

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 mandates that leave to amend “be freely given when

justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “This policy is to be applied with extreme

liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003)

(quotation omitted). In Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962), the Supreme Court offered

several factors for district courts to consider in deciding whether to grant a motion to amend

under Rule 15(a):

In the absence of any apparent or declared reason–such as undue delay, bad faith

or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies

by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by

virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.–the leave

sought should, as the rules require, be ‘freely given.’

Foman, 371 U.S. at 182; see also Smith v. Pac. Prop. Dev. Co., 358 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th Cir.

2004) (citing Forman factors).

“Not all of the [Foman] factors merit equal weight. As this circuit and others have held,

it is the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight.”

Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052 (citations omitted). “The party opposing amendment

bears the burden of showing prejudice.” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187

(9th Cir. 1987). “Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman

factors, there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.”

Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. Courts ordinarily defer consideration of any challenge

to the merits of the proposed amended complaint until after the amended pleading is filed. See

Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., No. C-04-4708, 2006 WL 3093812, at *2 (N.D.

Cal., Oct. 31, 2006) (“In view of Rule 15(a)’s permissive standard, courts ordinarily 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.”). 

Case 3:11-cv-00461-WQH-CAB Document 33 Filed 01/23/12 Page 3 of 4
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 - 11cv461 WQH (CAB)

Defendant opposes the amendment because it would be futile. After consideration of

the submissions of the parties, the Court concludes that Defendant has not made a sufficiently

strong showing of the Foman factors to overcome the presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor

of granting leave to amend. See Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. Plaintiff’s Motion to

for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (ECF No. 26) is GRANTED. The Third

Amended Complaint (ECF No. 26-2; ECF No. 26-3) filed by Plaintiff is the operative

complaint in this case. 

This case was removed from state court. The removal statute provides: “If at any time

before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case

shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The Third Amended Complaint asserts the

following state claims: (1) money had and received; (2) unjust enrichment; and (3) violation

of equal protection in violation of the California Constitution. The Third Amended Complaint

does not assert any federal claims. Accordingly, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction

over the Third Amended Complaint and Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (ECF No. 25) is

GRANTED. 

IV. Conclusion 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Motion to for Leave to File Third Amended

Complaint (ECF No. 26) filed by Plaintiff Swift Frame is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Third

Amended Complaint (ECF No. 26-2; ECF No. 26-3) is the operative complaint in this case.

The Motion to Remand (ECF No. 25) filed by Plaintiff Swift Frame is GRANTED. Pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), this action is REMANDED to the California Superior Court for the

County of San Diego, where it was originally filed and assigned Case No.

37-2009-00104602-CU-MC-CTL.

DATED: January 23, 2012

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00461-WQH-CAB Document 33 Filed 01/23/12 Page 4 of 4