Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02170/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02170-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE ESTATE OF BERNARD

VICTORIANNE by and through its

successor-in-interest ZELDA

VICTORIANNE, BERNARD

VICTORIANNE II, and ZELDA

VICTORIANNE,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 14cv2170-WQH-BLM

ORDER

vs.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,

WILLIAM GORE, and DOES 1

through 50,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matters before the Court are the Motion to Amend the Complaint (ECF 

NO. 18) filed by Plaintiffs The Estate of Bernard Victorianne by and through its

successor-in-interest Zelda Victorianne, Bernard Victorianne II, and Zelda Victorianne,

and the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 15) filed by Defendants County of Sand Diego and

William Gore.

BACKGROUND

On September 11, 2014, Plaintiffs The Estate of Bernard Victorianne by and

through its successor-in-interest Zelda Victorianne, Bernard Victorianne II, and Zelda

Victorianne initiated this action by filing the Complaint against Defendants County of

San Diego and William Gore. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges seven causes

of action including: (1) deliberate indifference to serious medical needs; (2) wrongful

- 1 - 14cv2170WQH-BLM

Case 3:14-cv-02170-WQH-BLM Document 36 Filed 01/30/15 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

death; (3) right of association; (4) failure to properly train; (5) failure to properly

supervise and discipline; (6) failure to properly investigate; and (7) Monell municipal

liability civil rights action. (ECF No. 1).

On November 7, 2014, Defendants County of San Diego and William Gore filed

the Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12

(b)(6). (ECF No. 15). On November 7, 2014, Plaintiff filed a response. (ECF No. 17).

On the same day, Plaintiffs filed the Ex Parte Motion to Amend the Complaint. 

(ECF No. 18). On November 24, 2014, Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiffs’ Ex

Parte Motion to Amend. (ECF No. 24). On December 1, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a reply. 

(ECF No. 28).

CONTENTIONS OF PARTIES

Plaintiffs contend that the filing of the First Amended Complaint will cause no

prejudice to any party. Plaintiffs contend that the filing of the First Amended

Complaint will cause no delay because discovery in the case has not yet begun. 

Plaintiffs contend that “[o]n November 7, 2014, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss,

asserting that Defendant William Gore is sued in his official capacity and that Zelda

Victorianne does not have standing to maintain a suit on behalf of the Estate of Bernard

Victorianne.” (ECF No. 18 at 3). Plaintiffs contend that in order “[t]o obviate the need

for fruitless litigation, Plaintiffs now move ex parte for leave to file the First Amended

Complaint which makes explicit that Defendant Gore is sued in his individual capacity

and that the Estate of Bernard Victorianne maintains its action through Zelda

Victorianne as the successor-in-interest.” Id.

Defendants contend that the ex parte motion for leave to file the amended

complaint should be denied because the amendment attempts to circumvent state court

jurisdiction over late claim relief, it is futile and imposes a prejudice on defendants. 

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

- 2 - 14cv2170WQH-BLM

Case 3:14-cv-02170-WQH-BLM Document 36 Filed 01/30/15 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

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

Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted). In determining whether to allow an amendment, a court

considers whether there is “undue delay,” “bad faith,” “undue prejudice to the opposing

party,” or “futility of amendment.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). “Not

all of the [Foman] factors merit equal weight.... [I]t is the consideration of prejudice

to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight.” Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at

1052 (citation 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.

After review of the Motion to Amend the Complaint and all related filings, the

Court concludes that Defendants have 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. The Court will defer consideration

of any challenge to the merits of the proposed second amended complaint until after the

amended pleading is filed. See Netbula 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.”). Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, addressing the First Amended

Complaint, will become moot after Plaintiff files the second amended complaint. See

London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981).

//

//

//

//

//

//

- 3 - 14cv2170WQH-BLM

Case 3:14-cv-02170-WQH-BLM Document 36 Filed 01/30/15 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

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Amend the Complaint is

GRANTED. (ECF No. 18). Plaintiff shall file the First Amended Complaint within ten

days of the date this Order is filed. The Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (ECF No. 15)

is DENIED as moot.

DATED: January 30, 2015

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 4 - 14cv2170WQH-BLM

Case 3:14-cv-02170-WQH-BLM Document 36 Filed 01/30/15 Page 4 of 4