Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03729/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03729-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 210
Nature of Suit: Land Condemnation
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 This disposition is not designated for publication in the official reports. 1

Case No. C 09-3729 JF (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED ANSWER

(JFLC2)

**E-Filed 2/12/2010**

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ANTOINETTE JARDINE BYRNE,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY AND PLANNING

DEPARTMENT, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 09-3729 JF (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 1

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN

AMENDED ANSWER

[re: document no. 16 ]

Defendants seek leave to amend their answer to add additional defenses. The Court has

considered the moving and responding papers as well as the argument presented at the hearing on

February 12, 2010. For the reasons discussed below, the motion will be granted. 

The request for leave to amend is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a),

which provides that “leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

15(a)(2). “But a district court need not grant leave to amend where the amendment: (1)

prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue delay in

litigation; or (4) is futile.” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951

Case 3:09-cv-03729-RS Document 31 Filed 02/12/10 Page 1 of 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

2

Case No. C 09-3729 JF (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED ANSWER

(JFLC2)

(9th Cir. 2006).

There is no prejudice to Plaintiff, as the case is in the early stages and very little discovery

has been done. There is no indication in the record that Defendants are acting in bad faith. The

proposed amendment will not delay the litigation, and Defendants have explained the timing of

their request by submitting a declaration of counsel explaining that the potential applicability of

the new defenses came to light only recently after counsel reviewed the administrative record in

this case. Finally, it does not appear that the proposed new defenses are futile. 

ORDER

Defendants’ motion for leave to amend their answer is GRANTED. Defendants shall file

an amended answer within twenty (20) days after the date of this order.

Dated: 2/12/2010

__________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-03729-RS Document 31 Filed 02/12/10 Page 2 of 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

3

Case No. C 09-3729 JF (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED ANSWER

(JFLC2)

Copies of Order served on:

Antoinette Jardine Byrne poirotacctg@hotmail.com 

Dana Maureen McRae dana.mcrae@co.santa-cruz.ca.us 

Jessica Claudine Espinoza jessica.espinoza@co.santa-cruz.ca.us, csl026@co.santa-cruz.ca.us,

csl054@co.santa-cruz.ca.us 

Case 3:09-cv-03729-RS Document 31 Filed 02/12/10 Page 3 of 3