Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00535/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00535-6/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

 Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pin cites are to the ECF-generated page

numbers at the tops of the documents.

No. 3:14-cv-00535-LB

ORDER

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

San Francisco Division

JOHN BURNS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF CONCORD, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

No. 3:14-cv-00535-LB

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE FOURTH

AMENDED COMPLAINT

[Re: ECF No. 96]

On November 5, 2015, which was the deadline for filing an amended complaint, the plaintiffs

filed a motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint. (See ECF Nos. 95, 96.1

)

Under Rule 15, after a responsive pleading is filed, “a party may amend its pleading only with

the opposing party’s consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “The court should freely

give leave when justice so requires.” Id. This leave policy is applied with “extreme liberality.” See

Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003). A court considers five

factors to determine whether to grant leave to amend: (1) bad faith; (2) undue delay; (3) prejudice to

the opposing party; (4) futility of amendment; and (5) whether the plaintiff previously amended his

complaint. See Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805, 808 (9th Cir. 2004). Delay alone is insufficient to

justify denial of leave to amend. Jones v. Bates, 127 F.3d 839, 847 n.8 (9th Cir. 1997). Of the

Case 3:14-cv-00535-LB Document 108 Filed 12/11/15 Page 1 of 2
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

No. 3:14-cv-00535-LB

ORDER

2

factors, prejudice to the opposing party is the “touchstone of the inquiry under rule 15(a)” and

“carries the greatest weight.” See Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. Absent prejudice or a strong

showing on other factors, a presumption exists under Rule 15(a) favoring granting leave to amend.

See id. The party opposing a motion to amend bears the burden of showing prejudice. DCD

Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987). 

At the initial case-management conference, the court set deadlines to allow 1) the plaintiffs to

conduct discovery, 2) the parties to engage in settlement discussions, 3) the plaintiffs to have time to

conform the pleadings to the discovery (by narrowing claims or identifying defendants), and 4) to

finish discovery in an orderly fashion after the pleadings were settled. The whole point was to have

an opportunity to file an amended complaint. Under the liberal Rule 15(a) standard, the court grants

leave to amend. 

As discussed at the hearing, though, the plaintiffs will try to slim the complaint further by

eliminating certain defendants. To allow this to happen in an orderly fashion, the court gave the

plaintiffs until January 21, 2016 to file the amended complaint. The defendants will have 14 days to

file a responsive pleading. This will result in a hearing for any motion to dismiss of March 17, 2016,

at 9:30 a.m. To keep the matter on calendar, the court also sets a case-management conference for

March 17, 2016 at 11 a.m. The court also directed the parties to schedule their early neutral

evaluation as soon as their schedules permit and in any event before the motions hearing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 11, 2015 

 LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-00535-LB Document 108 Filed 12/11/15 Page 2 of 2