Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01272/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01272-5/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 - 07cv1272-WQH-BLM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SERGIO LOPEZ, an individual,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07cv1272-WQH-BLM

ORDER

vs.

CHULA VISTA POLICE DEPARTMENT, a

municipal sub-agency of the COUNTY OF

SAN DIEGO, the CITY OF CHULA VISTA,

a municipal corporation, RICHARD

EMERSON, D. CLARK, an individual, G.

ARMSTRONG, an individual, D.

MARTINEZ, an individual, Sergeant

GUTHRIE, an individual, Sergeant FOBES,

an individual, and DOES 1-20, inclusive ,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge: 

The matter before the Court is the motion for leave to amend the complaint (Doc. # 32) filed

by Plaintiff Sergio Lopez. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On July 13, 2007, Plaintiff Sergio Lopez filed a complaint (Doc. # 1) against the Chula Vista

Police Department, the City of Chula Vista, Richard Emerson, D. Clark, G. Armstrong, D. Martinez,

Sergeant Guthrie, and Sergeant Fobes. On November 6, 2007, Plaintiff filed a first amended

complaint (Doc. # 3) against Defendants for (1) false arrest, (2) excessive force, (3) failure to properly

screen and hire, (4) failure to train, (5) failure to supervise and discipline, (6) Monell liability for a

pattern of brutality, (7) Monell liability for failure to properly investigate complaint, (8) assault and

Case 3:07-cv-01272-WQH-BLM Document 47 Filed 11/14/08 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 - 07cv1272-WQH-BLM

battery, (9) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (1) violation of the UNRUH Act pursuant

to California Civil Code § 52.1. (Doc. # 3). On December 13, 2007, Defendants filed an answer

(Doc. # 17) to the amended complaint. On February 25, 2008, the Magistrate Judge held a case

management conference with the parties pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

(Doc # 23). The Magistrate Judge issued a case management conference order regulating discovery

and setting a March 31, 2008 deadline for filing any motion to amend the pleadings or to file

additional pleadings. (Doc. # 22). The order stated that “the dates and times set forth herein will not

be modified except for good cause shown.” (Doc. # 22 at 8).

On May 23, 2008, the parties filed a joint motion for an extension of time to complete

discovery. (Doc. # 24). The Magistrate Judge granted the motion, ordering discovery to be completed

by October 17, 2008. (Doc. # 25). On August 7, 2008, the parties filed a second joint motion for an

extension of time to complete discovery. (Doc. 27). The Magistrate Judge granted the motion,

ordering all fact discovery to be completed by October 24, 2008, and all expert discovery to be

completed by November 7, 2008. (Doc. # 29). On September 18, 2008, Plaintiff filed a motion for

leave to amend the complaint. (Doc. # 32). On October 14, 2008, Defendants filed a response in

opposition to the motion to amend the complaint. (Doc. # 39). On October 20, 2008, Plaintiff filed

a reply in support of the motion to amend the complaint. (Doc. # 45). 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff moves for leave to amend the complaint by adding a negligence cause of action

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). (Doc. # 32 at 3). Plaintiff explains that on September 11, 2008,

Chula Vista Police Chief Emerson gave deposition testimony regarding certain facts which

Plaintiff believes could give rise to a negligence cause of action. 

Defendants oppose leave to amend and in the alternative, request the Court to extend the

time for discovery to permit Defendants adequate opportunity to engage in discovery relating to a

cause of action for negligence. (Doc. # 39). Defendants contend that the deadline for amending

pleadings expired on March 31, 2008 and that the liberal standard for allowing amendments to

pleadings under Rule 15(a) no longer applies. Defendants assert that this Court may only allow

Plaintiff to amend the complaint upon a showing of good cause pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. § 16. 

Case 3:07-cv-01272-WQH-BLM Document 47 Filed 11/14/08 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 - 07cv1272-WQH-BLM

Defendants assert that they will be severely prejudiced as they will have been denied the

opportunity to engage in discovery and prepare a defense to the alleged negligence. Defendants

further contend that adding a cause of action for negligence would be futile because Defendants

are government entitles and government employees and are immune from negligence pursuant to

Government Code § 815. 

Although Plaintiff has not expressly moved for a modification under Rule 16(b), the

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint impliedly requires this Court to modify the

March 31, 2008 deadline provided in the scheduling order. A party seeking leave to amend the

complaint after the date specified in the scheduling order “must first show good cause for

amendment under Rule 16(b), then if good cause be shown, the party must demonstrate that

amendment was proper under Rule 15.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604,

608 (9th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted); Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see also Doc. # 22 (scheduling

order stating that dates may be modified for “good cause”). Good cause exits when the pretrial

schedule “cannot be reasonably met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” 

Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. In this case, the facts giving rise to a potential negligence cause of

action were discovered during the September 10, 2008 deposition of Police Chief Richard P.

Emerson (Doc. # 45-4). Plaintiff filed the motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a

negligence claim on September 18, 2008. The deposition was taken well before the October 24,

2008 discovery cutoff date. The Court concludes that Plaintiff has made a sufficient showing of

good cause under Rule 16(b) to modify the March 31, 2008 deadline to amend his complaint. 

Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that leave to amend “be freely

given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). This policy is applied with “extraordinary

liberality.” Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990). Once

an answer to the complaint has been filed, “leave to amend should be granted as unless amendment

would cause prejudice to the opposing party, is sought in bad faith, is futile, or creates undue

delay.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 607. 

In this case, the motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a negligence claim was

filed by Plaintiff eight days after discovering the relevant facts. Plaintiff states that he “will agree

Case 3:07-cv-01272-WQH-BLM Document 47 Filed 11/14/08 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 - 07cv1272-WQH-BLM

unilaterally to permit additional depositions, answer additional interrogatories, or produce

additional documents of any kind, bearing upon plaintiff’s claim of negligence.” (Doc. # 25 at 3). 

Further, the final pre-trial conference is not scheduled to take place until March 23, 2009. 

Allowing Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint will not create undue delay and will not

unduly prejudice the Defendants. The Court cannot conclude that the proposed amendments

would be futile based on the pleadings or that Plaintiff is proceeding in bad faith. 

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for leave to amend the complaint (Doc. # 32) filed

by Plaintiff is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file the Second Amended Complaint specifically set forth

in Document # 32-2 within 10 days of the date of this order. 

DATED: November 14, 2008

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01272-WQH-BLM Document 47 Filed 11/14/08 Page 4 of 4