Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01091/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01091-4/pdf.json

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

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Savanah and Andy St. Clair seek leave to file an amended complaint in the action. (Doc. 37) 

Defendants filed a statement of non-opposition to the motion. (Doc. 39) Having reviewed the motion 

and its supporting documents, the Court finds the matter is suitable for decision without oral arguments. 

Accordingly, the matter is taken under submission pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), and the hearing date 

of April 20, 2016 is VACATED. 

Because leave to amend the complaint is appropriate under Rule 15, as discussed below, 

Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint is GRANTED. 

I. Legal Standards 

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), a party may amend a pleading once as a matter of course within 21 

days of service, or if the pleading is one to which a response is required, 21 days after service of a 

motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f). “In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the 

opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Here, Defendants filed 

SAVANAH ST. CLAIR, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01091- LJO-JLT

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION 

TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

(Doc. 37)

Case 1:15-cv-01091-LJO-JLT Document 40 Filed 04/08/16 Page 1 of 4
2

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

an Answer on December 8, 2015. (Doc. 14) Therefore, Plaintiffs require either consent of Defendants

or leave of the Court to file an amended complaint.

Granting or denying leave to amend a complaint is in the discretion of the Court, Swanson v. 

United States Forest Service, 87 F.3d 339, 343 (9th Cir. 1996), though leave should be “freely give[n] 

when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “In exercising this discretion, a court must be 

guided by the underlying purpose of Rule 15 to facilitate decision on the merits, rather than on the 

pleadings or technicalities.” United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981). Thus, the 

policy to grant leave to amend is applied with extreme liberality. Id. There is no abuse of discretion “in 

denying a motion to amend where the movant presents no new facts but only new theories and provides 

no satisfactory explanation for his failure to fully develop his contentions originally.” Bonin v. 

Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995); see also Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 374 

(9th Cir. 1990). 

II. Discussion and Analysis

In evaluating a motion to amend under Rule 15, the Court may consider (1) whether the 

plaintiffs previously amended the complaint, (2) undue delay, (3) bad faith, (4) futility of amendment, 

and (5) prejudice to the opposing party. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Loehr v. Ventura 

County Community College Dist., 743 F.2d 1310, 1319 (9th Cir. 1984). These factors are not of equal 

weight, as prejudice to the opposing party has long been held to be the most critical factor to determine 

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

Cir. 2003); Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990).

A. Prior amendments

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

previously amended the complaint. Allen, 911 F.2d at 373; Fidelity Fin. Corp. v. Fed. Home Loan 

Bank, 79 F.3d 1432, 1438 (9th Cir. 1986). Here, Plaintiffs have not previously amended the 

complaint. Thus, this factor does not weigh against amendment.

B. Undue delay

By itself, undue delay is insufficient to prevent the Court from granting leave to amend 

pleadings. Howey v. United States, 481 F.2d 1187, 1191(9th Cir. 1973); DCD Programs v. Leighton, 

Case 1:15-cv-01091-LJO-JLT Document 40 Filed 04/08/16 Page 2 of 4
3

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

833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1986). Evaluating undue delay, the Court considers whether “permitting an 

amendment would ... produce an undue delay in the litigation.” Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 

1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990)

Here, Plaintiffs initiated the action without the representation of counsel in July 2015. After 

Plaintiffs obtained a counsel, who filed a notice of appearance on February 2, 2016, Plaintiffs informed 

the Court that “they intend[ed] to seek leave to file a First Amended Complaint.” (Doc. 25 at 5) The 

Court set a pleading amendment deadline of May 9, 2016. (Doc. 32 at 1) Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed an 

ex parte application for leave to file an amended complaint on February 29, 2016 (Doc. 35), which was 

denied by the Court as procedurally improper on March 7, 2016 (Doc. 37). Plaintiffs filed the motion 

now pending before the Court only a week later on March 14, 2016. Thus, it does not appear that 

Plaintiffs have acted in a dilatory manner. Moreover, the case was only recently scheduled and the 

amendment would not delay the proceedings. Accordingly, this factor does not weigh against leave to 

amend. See Jackson, 903 F.2d at 1387.

C. Bad faith

There is no evidence that Plaintiffs have acted in bad faith in seeking to file an amended 

complaint to raise an additional cause of action and identify a new defendant. Thus, this factor does 

not weigh against an amendment.

D. Futility of amendment

“Futility of amendment can, by itself, justify the denial of a motion for leave to amend.” 

Bonin, 59 F.3d at 845; see also Miller v. Rykoff-Sexton, 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 1988) (“A motion 

for leave to amend may be denied if it appears to be futile or legally insufficient”). Here, there is no 

showing that the proposed amendment is futile. Therefore, this factor does not weigh against granting 

leave to amend.

E. Prejudice to the opposing party

Generally, the most critical factor in determining whether to grant leave to amend is prejudice 

to the opposing party. Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052 (“Prejudice is the touchstone of the inquiry 

under rule 15(a)”) (internal quotes omitted). Prejudice has been found where the “parties have 

engaged in voluminous and protracted discovery” prior to amendment, or where “[e]xpense, delay, 

Case 1:15-cv-01091-LJO-JLT Document 40 Filed 04/08/16 Page 3 of 4
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

and wear and tear on individuals and companies” is established. Kaplan v. Rose, 49 F.3d 1363, 1370 

(9th Cir. 1994). The burden of showing prejudice is on the party opposing an amendment to the 

complaint. DCD Programs, 833 F.2d at 187. 

In this case, Defendants do not oppose the amendment, and do not contend they would suffer 

any prejudice. Notably, there is a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend 

where prejudice is not shown. Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. Consequently, this factor does 

not weigh against granting leave to amend. 

III. Conclusion and Order

Based upon the foregoing, the factors set forth by the Ninth Circuit weigh in favor of allowing 

Plaintiffs to file the First Amended Complaint. See Madeja, 310 F.3d at 636. Therefore, the Court is 

acting within its discretion in granting the motion to amend. See Swanson, 87 F.3d at 343. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The hearing date of April 20, 2016 is VACATED;

2. Plaintiffs’ motion to amend (Doc. 37) is GRANTED; and

3. Plaintiffs SHALL file the amended complaint within three days of the date of service of 

this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 8, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01091-LJO-JLT Document 40 Filed 04/08/16 Page 4 of 4