Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00672/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00672-5/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIANNA REGALADO, as successor in 

interest to decedent RAYMOND 

REGALADO,

Plaintiff,

v.

FRESNO COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00672-KES-BAM

ORDER GRANTING RENEWED MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

(Doc. 53)

 This case arises out of the death of Raymond Regalado (“Decedent”) while a pretrial 

detainee in the Fresno County Jail. Plaintiff Dianna Regalado (“Plaintiff” of “Plaintiff 

Regalado”), as successor in interest to Decedent, initiated this civil rights action against 

Defendants Wellpath, LLC, County of Fresno, and Fresno County Sheriff’s Office. (Doc. 1.) 

Currently before the Court is a renewed motion for leave to amend the complaint to substitute 

minor C.R.A. and Melchor David Alvarez, Decedent’s children, as plaintiffs.

1

(Doc. 53.) The 

Court found the motion suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 

230(g), and vacated the hearing set for August 16, 2024. (Doc. 58.)

For the reasons that follow, the renewed motion for leave to amend will be granted, 

1 Concurrent with the instant motion, Natyshja Alvarez submitted a petition for appointment as guardian 

ad litem for minor C.R.A. (Doc. 54.) The Court will address the petition by separate order. 

Case 1:23-cv-00672-KES-BAM Document 59 Filed 11/08/24 Page 1 of 11
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

subject to the revisions to the proposed first amended complaint identified by the Court. 

I. Background

Plaintiff Regalado initiated this action on May 2, 2023. (Doc. 1.) At that time, Plaintiff 

confirmed she was “Decedent’s heir” and the “intestate successor in interest” to Decedent’s 

estate. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 90.) Plaintiff forwarded the following claims: (1) deliberate indifference to 

serious medical and mental health needs in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment (Survival 

Action – 42 U.S.C. § 1983); (2) failure to protect from harm in violation of the Fourteenth 

Amendment (Survival Action – 42 U.S.C. § 1983); (3) Municipal (Monell Liability) for 

Unconstitutional Policies, Procedures, Practices and Customs (42 U.S.C. § 1983); (4) deprivation 

of substantive due process rights, loss of parent/child relationship in violation of the First and 

Fourteenth Amendments (42 U.S.C. § 1983); (5) Negligent Supervision, Training, Hiring, and 

Retention (Survival Action – California State Law); (6) Wrongful Death (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 

377.60); and (7) State Civil Rights Violations (Survival Action – California Civil Code § 52.1). 

(Doc. 1.) 

Defendants County of Fresno and Fresno County Sheriff’s Office answered the complaint 

on June 9, 2023. (Doc. 5.) Defendant Wellpath, LLC filed a motion to dismiss the claims against 

it on August 7, 2023. (Doc. 18.) The motion to dismiss is fully briefed and remains pending 

before the district judge. 

On April 15, 2024, Plaintiff Regalado, through counsel, filed a motion to amend the 

complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). (Doc. 36.) According to the 

motion, Plaintiff Regalado passed away on December 12, 2023. However, she had “successors in 

interest, daughter and grandsons as proper parties to this action,” and therefore requested “leave 

of court to add/substitute new successors.” (Doc. 36 at 2.) The motion further indicated that 

Plaintiff Regalado had “proper beneficiaries and successor in interest as her daughter Veronica 

Regalado, and grandkids, Raymond Regalado’s natural sons C.R.A. and David Melchor Alvarez.” 

(Id. at 7.) Concurrently filed with the motion was a petition for appointment of guardian ad litem 

for minor C.R.A. (Doc. 37.) 

On April 24, 2024, the Court denied the motion to amend the complaint without prejudice

Case 1:23-cv-00672-KES-BAM Document 59 Filed 11/08/24 Page 2 of 11
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

and disregarded the related petition for appointment of guardian ad litem. (Doc. 39.) The Court 

determined that Plaintiff’s motion to amend filed under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 25(a)(1) for filing of a notice of suggestion of 

death on the record, nor did it comply with the requirements of Rule 25(a). The Court therefore 

directed Plaintiff to file a notice of suggestion of death on the record related to Plaintiff Dianna 

Regalado and to file proof of service of the notice. (Id.)

On April 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for hearing pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 25 to substitute Veronica Regalado as Plaintiff Regalado’s successor-in-interest, along 

with a certificate of death for Plaintiff Dianna Regalado.2 (Doc. 40.) Plaintiff also filed a 

renewed motion for leave to amend the complaint under Rule 15 to add new parties, C.R.A. and 

Melchor David Alvarez.3 (Doc. 41.) Defendants County of Fresno and Fresno County Sheriff’s 

Department opposed both the motion to substitute and the motion for leave to amend. (Docs. 46, 

48.)

On May 24, 2024, the Court directed Plaintiff to file supplemental briefing to address, 

among other issues, the following: (1) whether Dianna Regalado was, at the outset of this 

litigation, a proper successor in interest (and for which claims); (2) identification of the proper 

successors in interest and whether they can now be substituted in place of Dianna Regalado; (3) 

discrepancies between Veronica Regalado’s sworn declaration that she is both Dianna Regalado’s 

and Decedent’s successor in interest and no other person has a superior right and Plaintiff’s brief 

asserting the children of Decedent would have superior claims for Decedent’s personal claims for 

pain and suffering and violation of his civil rights; (4) identification of Dianna Regalado’s 

2 There is no formal notice or suggestion of death upon the record. The docket entry is titled

“SUGGESTION of DEATH Upon the Record as to Plaintiff Dianna Regalado,” but the motion asserts that 

no statement of death has been filed. (See Doc. 40 at, 4, 6.) Notwithstanding, courts have construed a 

motion for substitution to be a notice of death when a party’s death is mentioned in the substitution 

motion. See Renee S. v. O'Malley, No. 3:23-CV-00480-AHG, 2024 WL 2980781, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 13, 

2024); Worrell v. Colvin, Case No. 1:12-cv-3386, 2013 WL 3364373, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. July 3, 2013); see 

also Fed. R. Civ. P. 25 advisory committee’s note (1963) (“A motion to substitute may be made by any 

party or by the representative of the deceased party without awaiting the suggestion of death. Indeed, the 

motion will usually be so made.”).

3 Veronica Regalado, Melchor David Alvarez, and C.R.A. (through the proposed guardian ad litem, 

Natyshja Alvarez.) are reportedly clients of Plaintiff Dianna Regalado’s counsel. (Doc. 41, Declaration of 

Counsel at ¶ 8.) 

Case 1:23-cv-00672-KES-BAM Document 59 Filed 11/08/24 Page 3 of 11
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

personal claims; and (5) identification of which plaintiffs are proposed to be substituted or added 

to the action for each claim for relief. (Doc. 51.) Additionally, the Court directed Plaintiff to file 

a revised proposed First Amended Complaint clearly identifying which plaintiffs are proposed to 

be substituted or added to the action for each claim of relief. (Id.)

In lieu of filing a supplemental brief, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to amend 

the complaint under Rule 15. (Doc. 53.) Plaintiff reportedly is presenting the Court with a draft 

of the First Amended Complaint “dropping Veronica Regalado as a successor in interest and

naming only the kids of Raymond Regalado who are bringing this action on their individual 

behalf for wrongful death and on behalf of the decedent in survival action.” (Doc. 53 at 5.) 

Plaintiff asserts that Decedent’s children, C.R.A. and Melchor David Alvarez, have standing to 

pursue this action on behalf of Decedent and themselves. (Id.)

II. Discussion

Plaintiff contends the proposed amendment is permissible under Rule 15 and the relevant 

factors under Foman v. Davis, 371 US. 178, 182 (1962), primarily because it is timely, not 

prejudicial to defendants, and C.R.A. and Melchor David Alvarez are proper parties to this action 

with standing to pursue the action on behalf of Decedent and themselves. (Doc. 53 at 7-16.) 

Defendants oppose the motion to amend on multiple grounds, including the following: (1) 

Plaintiff Dianna Regalado was not a proper successor in interest to the Decedent for any claims 

except those personal to her; (2) there is no identification of which, if any, claims of Dianna 

Regalado were personal to her or whether such claims were extinguished upon her death; (3) the 

proposed First Amended Complaint does not clearly delineate which plaintiffs are proposed to be 

substituted or added to the causes of action; (4) the renewed motion for leave to amend is 

premature because plaintiffs have failed to file and serve a suggestion of death; and (5) leave to 

amend is improper under Rule 15 due to futility. (See generally Doc. 56.) 

The Court construes the instant motion as one for leave to file a first amended complaint 

under Rule 15 to substitute C.R.A. and Melchor David Alvarez as plaintiffs and real parties in 

interest—as successors in interest to Decedent and for their own individual claims—not as a 

motion to substitute them as successors in interest to Dianna Regalado under Rule 25. For that

Case 1:23-cv-00672-KES-BAM Document 59 Filed 11/08/24 Page 4 of 11
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

reason, Defendants’ arguments related to Dianna Regalado, including whether she was a proper 

successor in interest, her purported claims, and the notice of suggestion of death, are not 

dispositive of the Court’s analysis under Rule 15. 

1. Legal Standard

Rule 15(a) provides that a court “should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so 

requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The United States Supreme Court has stated:

[i]n 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. The intent of the rule is to “facilitate decision on the merits, rather than 

on the pleadings or technicalities.” Chudacoff v. Univ. Med. Center of S. Nev., 649 F.3d 1143, 

1152 (9th Cir. 2011). Consequently, the “policy of favoring amendments to pleadings should be 

applied with ‘extreme liberality.’” United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981).

Courts consider five factors in determining whether justice requires allowing amendment 

under Rule 15(a): “bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, 

and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.” Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 

1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). These factors are not of equal weight as prejudice 

to the opposing party has long been held to be the most critical factor in determining whether to 

grant leave to amend. Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 

2003) (“As this circuit and others have held, it is the consideration of prejudice to the opposing 

party that carries the greatest weight”); Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 

1990) (“Prejudice to the opposing party is the most important factor.”). Absent prejudice, or a 

strong showing of any of the remaining factors, a presumption exists under Rule 15(a) in favor of 

granting leave to amend. Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052.

2. Analysis

a. Prejudice

Undue prejudice to the opposing party is the most important factor in deciding whether 

leave to amend should be granted. Eminence Capital, LLC, 316 F.3d at 1052 (“As this circuit and 

Case 1:23-cv-00672-KES-BAM Document 59 Filed 11/08/24 Page 5 of 11
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

others have held, it is the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest 

weight.”). “‘Undue prejudice’ means substantial prejudice or substantial negative effect.’” SAES 

Getters S.p.A. v. Aeronex, Inc., 219 F. Supp. 2d 1081, 1085 (S.D. Cal. 2002) (quoting Morongo 

Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990) ). “A need to reopen 

discovery and therefore delay the proceedings supports a district court’s finding of prejudice from 

a delayed motion to amend the complaint.” Calderon v. Tulare Reg’l Med. Ctr., No. 1:17-cv0040-BAM, 2018 WL 4473626, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2018) (quotation and citation omitted). 

Prejudice is generally mitigated where the case is still in the discovery stage, no trial date is 

pending, and no pretrial conference has occurred. Id. (citing DCD Programs Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 

F.2d 183, 187-88 (9th Cir. 1987)).

Defendants do not contend that allowing amendment will cause undue prejudice. Further, 

this action is in its early stages, and although some discovery has been exchanged and 

propounded, no discovery deadlines have been set, no trial date is pending, and no pretrial 

conference has occurred. The Court therefore finds that this factor weighs in favor of granting 

leave to amend. 

b. Undue Delay 

“Undue delay is delay that prejudices the nonmoving party or imposes unwarranted 

burdens on the court.” Baker v. Nutrien Ag Sols., Inc., No. 1:21-cv-01490-ADA-SKO, 2023 WL 

4352658, at *6 (E.D. Cal. July 5, 2023) (quotation and citation omitted). In evaluating undue 

delay, the Court considers “whether the moving party knew or should have known the facts and 

theories raised by the amendment in the original pleading.” Jackson, 902 F.2d at 1388. “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).

Here, it is claimed that Dianna Regalado was unaware that Decedent had two natural sons 

at the time of filing the suit, and that this information “became known only after the death of 

Plaintiff Dianna Regalado verified through DNA test.” (Doc. 53 at 7.) Plaintiff’s counsel

declares that Dianna Regalado stated: she “was unaware” of her son having any children, he was

not married, and he “lived with her before his arrest, taking care of her financially.” (Doc. 53, p. 

Case 1:23-cv-00672-KES-BAM Document 59 Filed 11/08/24 Page 6 of 11
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

19-2, Declaration of Counsel Narine Mkrtchyan ¶ 2.) Plaintiff’s counsel further declares that 

after Dianna Regalado’s passing in December 2023, and attempting, without success, to obtain 

proof of her death in January 2024, a private investigator located Dianna Regalado’s “daughterin-law Natyshja Alvarez,” the mother of Decedent’s children. (Id.) Counsel also declares that 

Ms. Alvarez was “not married” to Decedent, but had lived with Decedent “for some time,” and 

that Decedent was supporting his children financially. (Id.) Plaintiff’s counsel requested that Ms. 

Alvarez provide proof by DNA test that her children are the children of Decedent, and Ms. 

Alvarez reportedly provided satisfactory proof. Ms. Alvarez and her sons were not aware of the 

lawsuit until Plaintiff’s counsel reached out to them. Plaintiff’s counsel further declares that Ms. 

Alvarez did not obtain Dianna Regalado’s death certificate until March 22, 2024. (Id.) 

Defendants assert that counsel’s allegations contain obvious inconsistencies regarding 

Dianna Regalado having a “daughter-in-law” who was also “not married” to the Decedent, and 

that significant doubt is cast upon the claim that Dianna Regalado was unaware of her 

grandchildren despite Decedent living with them and their mother for some time and continuing 

to financially support them. Defendants further assert that the conflicting assertions raise 

significant concerns as to the veracity of Dianna Regalado’s claim that she was unaware of any 

grandchildren through the Decedent. (Doc.56 at 9.) 

The Court acknowledges the inconsistencies, but declines to assess the veracity of Dianna 

Regalado’s statement. It is sufficient that counsel has attested to the information relayed by 

Dianna Regalado and that neither Ms. Alvarez nor her children were aware of the lawsuit before 

being contacted by counsel. Because amendment of the complaint originally was sought within

approximately 3-4 months after counsel located Ms. Alvarez and within approximately 1 month 

after Ms. Alvarez obtained Dianna Regalado’s death certificate, the Court does not find evidence 

of undue delay. See, e.g., N. Cal. River Watch v. Ecodyne Corp., No. C 10–5105 MEJ, 2013 WL 

146324, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2013) (“Because River Watch sought to amend its pleading 

within a month after receiving such information, there is no evidence of undue delay. This factor 

thus weighs in favor of allowing leave to amend.”). This factor therefore weighs in favor of 

granting leave to amend. Moreover, even if Defendants could show that all of the relevant 

Case 1:23-cv-00672-KES-BAM Document 59 Filed 11/08/24 Page 7 of 11
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

information regarding the children of Decedent was available at the time of filing the original 

complaint, thereby demonstrating undue delay, such a showing would still be insufficient on its 

own to deny leave to amend. See Baker, 2023 WL 4352658, at *7. 

c. Bad Faith

A motion to amend is made in bad faith when there is evidence of a wrongful motive. See 

DCD Programs, 833 F.2d at 187 (“Since there is no evidence in the record which would indicate 

a wrongful motive, there is no cause to uphold the denial of leave to amend on the basis of bad 

faith”); Trujillo v. SSSC, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-01691-ADA-BAM, 2023 WL 346801, at *3 (E.D. Cal. 

Jan. 20, 2023) (finding nothing to suggest motion to amend made in bad faith in the absence of 

evidence of any wrongful motive). 

While Defendants do not directly contend that the motion for leave to amend is brought in 

bad faith, they question the veracity of Dianna Regalado’s claim that she was unaware of any 

grandchildren through the Decedent. (Doc.56 at 9.) As noted above, however, counsel has 

attested to Dianna Regalado’s statement that she was unaware of Decedent’s children. Counsel 

also has attested that Ms. Alvarez and Decedent’s sons were only identified after the passing of 

Dianna Regalado. There is no evidentiary basis to doubt the assertions of counsel, or to ascribe a 

wrongful motive to counsel or Dianna Regalado. This factor therefore does not weigh against 

granting leave to amend. 

d. Prior Amendments

The Court’s discretion to deny an amendment is “particularly broad” where a pleading has 

been amended previously. Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 373 (9th Cir.1990); 

Calderon, 2018 WL 4473626, at *3. Plaintiffs have not previously amended their complaint in 

this action. Therefore, this factor does not weigh against amendment.

e. 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)). Proposed amendments are futile if “no set of 

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

Case 1:23-cv-00672-KES-BAM Document 59 Filed 11/08/24 Page 8 of 11
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

9

sufficient claim or defense,” Missouri ex rel. Koster v. Harris, 847 F.3d 646, 656 (9th Cir. 2017), 

or when they “are either duplicative of existing claims or patently frivolous,” Murray v. Schriro, 

745 F.3d 984, 1015 (9th Cir. 2014). However, denial of motions to amend on futility grounds is 

“rare.” Netbula, LLC v. Distinct Corp., 212 F.R.D. 534, 539 (N.D. Cal. 2003). “Ordinarily, courts 

will 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.” Id. (citation omitted).

Defendants argue granting leave to amend would be futile because: (1) the proposed 

plaintiffs, namely Decedent’s sons, inadequately allege they have standing to bring a survival 

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983;4and (2) the state law claims against Defendant County of Fresno 

and the Fresno County Sheriff’s Department are improper under the California Government 

Claims Act and have been extinguished. (Doc. 56 at 14-20.) 

Based on the Court’s finding that there is no undue delay or prejudice — and absent any 

evidence of bad faith or prior amendment — the Court declines to deny the motion for leave to 

amend purely based on futility grounds. See Rivkin v. J.P. Morgan Chase, N.A., No. 2:14-cv02662-TLN-EFB, 2016 WL 6094485, at *1–2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2016) (“[A] court need not 

deny a plaintiff's motion for leave to amend based on futility alone.”). The Court defers 

addressing Defendants’ arguments about the merits of the proposed claims at this stage of the 

proceedings. See Wood v. County of Stanislaus, No. 2:21-cv-01572-TLN-KJN, 2023 WL 

7283525, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2023) (declining to deny motion for leave to amend on futility 

grounds alone where defendants argued that certain new claims were time barred, plaintiff 

inadequately alleged a Monell claim, official capacity claims were redundant, and the state law 

4 Defendants assert that proposed amended complaint seeks to substitute Decedent’s sister and two 

children as plaintiffs, citing a previous iteration of the proposed amended complaint. (Doc. 56 at 19, citing 

Doc. 41, Ex. A.) Defendants contend that Decedent’s sister, Veronica Regalado, is not a proper successor 

in interest to the decedent as his children have superior right to commence an action on behalf of the 

decedent. (Doc. 59 at 19.) As explained in the motion, the proposed amended complaint seeks to 

substitute only Decedent’s sons, not Decedent’s sister, as successors in interest. (See Doc. 53 at 5.) 

Defendants’ argument relative to Decedent’s sister is therefore moot. 

Notwithstanding this determination, the Court notes that the proposed first amended complaint 

continues to name Veronica Regalado as a plaintiff in this action. (See Doc. 53-1, Ex. A, p. 3:3-5) 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs will be required to omit all reference to Veronica Regalado from the first amended 

complaint. 

Case 1:23-cv-00672-KES-BAM Document 59 Filed 11/08/24 Page 9 of 11
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

10

claims were improper under the California Government Claims Act). Further, whether Plaintiffs

have adequately pleaded their claims under § 1983 is a question better addressed on a motion to 

dismiss. See, e.g., Ross v. Wilmington Savs. Fund Soc’y, FSB, No. 2:22-cv-07922-MCS-RAO, 

2023 WL 3431911, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2023) (“Whether Plaintiff has adequately pleaded her 

proposed new claims is a question better addressed on a motion to dismiss”); Antablin v. Motion 

Picture Costumers, Loc. #705, No. 2:18-cv-09474-MCS-AS, 2021 WL 4732929, at *2 (C.D. Cal. 

July 6, 2021) (“Whether Antablin adequately pleaded her proposed new claim is a question better 

addressed on a motion to dismiss.”); Macias v. WMC Mortg. Corp., No. 09cv1374-WQH-JMA, 

2010 WL 114006, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2010) (deferring consideration of challenges to the 

merits of proposed amended pleading until after leave to amend granted and the amended 

pleading filed, provided plaintiffs could demonstrate or adequately allege that they are the real 

parties in interest to assert the claims). 

Moreover, while the motion to amend only references Rule 15, the request to substitute 

the plaintiffs in this action implicates Rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 17 

mandates that an action “be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

17(a)(1). Rule 17(a)(3) explicitly affords the plaintiff an opportunity to join or substitute the real 

party in interest prior to dismissal of the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(a)(3); Baker v. Nutrien Ag Sols., 

Inc., No. 1:21-cv-01490-ADA-SKO, 2023 WL 4352658, at *6 (E.D. Cal. July 5, 2023) (granting 

leave to amend where proposed amendment would permit plaintiff to prosecute case in the name 

of real party in interest). Defendants do not argue that the proposed plaintiffs are not the real 

parties interest as successors in interest to Decedent. 

On balance, the relevant factors weigh in favor of permitting the proposed amendment. 

However, Defendants are not precluded from renewing their challenges on a motion to dismiss or 

other appropriate responsive pleading.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The renewed motion for leave to amend complaint (Doc. 53) is GRANTED, 

subject to the omission of all references to Veronica Regalado in the first amended complaint. 

Case 1:23-cv-00672-KES-BAM Document 59 Filed 11/08/24 Page 10 of 11
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

11

2. Within ten (10) court days, Plaintiffs shall file their proposed First Amended 

Complaint, a copy of which was attached as Exhibit 1 to the motion, with the revision identified 

by the Court in this Order.

3. Defendants shall file an answer or other responsive pleading in compliance with 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any relevant Local Rules following service of the First 

Amended Complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 8, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00672-KES-BAM Document 59 Filed 11/08/24 Page 11 of 11