Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01145/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01145-4/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEE D. HARBERT,

ANNE KRAJEWSKI-HARBERT,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

ROBERT PRIEBE, MARK RUPPENTHAL,

ED ZELTZER, TOWN OF MORAGA,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-01145 WHA

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT

INTRODUCTION

In this civil-rights action, plaintiffs Lee Harbert and Anne Krajewski-Harbert move for

leave to file an amended complaint so as to add an additional state tort cause of action and

clarify some of their existing claims. Plaintiffs have shown good cause and should be given

leave to amend their complaint. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED.

STATEMENT

Plaintiffs are husband and wife who are residents of Moraga, California. Defendants

Robert Priebe and Ed Zeltzer are detectives in the Moraga Police Department. Defendant Mark

Ruppenthal is the chief of police of this department. Plaintiffs brought suit against defendant

officers and the town of Moraga, challenging the conduct of the officers involved in the

investigation of a hit-and-run automobile incident in which Lee Harbert is a suspect

(Compl. ¶¶ 13–14). 

Case 3:06-cv-01145-WHA Document 54 Filed 12/14/06 Page 1 of 6
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

2

On January 22, 2005, defendants Priebe and Zeltzer met with Krajewski-Harbert, the

wife, as part of their investigation of the hit-and-run incident. Plaintiffs claim that defendants

improperly informed her that a woman had been with her husband in the car at the time of the

accident, performing oral sex on plaintiff’s husband (Compl. ¶¶ 74–77). 

On January 27, 2005, defendant Robert Priebe and other unknown officers executed a

search warrant on the Harberts’ previous residence located in Oakland. During the search, the

police seized, removed, and kept in their possession items of plaintiffs’ personal property, many

of which plaintiffs allege were unrelated items with no evidentiary value and were wrongfully

and unreasonably seized. Following plaintiffs’ submission of a notice of claim, defendants

returned Harbert’s Jaguar and personal computer. Harbart, however, lost possession over these

two items from January 2005 to approximately July 2005 (Compl. ¶¶ 31–35). Plaintiffs did not

receive the rest of the items seized from their home, despite their attempts to have these items

returned to them. 

From January 27, 2005, to dates thereafter, plaintiffs allege that police officials

transmitted confidential facts about plaintiffs’ DUI histories in addition to other confidential

information to news agencies. These agencies then published this private information to the

general public in a series of news articles and television news items from the period of

January 2005 to February 2005 (Compl. ¶¶ 49–50). In addition, plaintiffs claim that defendants

Priebe, Zeltzer, and Ruppenthal provided the hit-and-run victim’s family with plaintiffs’ private

and confidential financial information, including auto information and banking information

(Compl. ¶ 51). 

Plaintiffs filed this action on February 16, 2006, alleging violations of their federal

constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiffs also asserted the state claims of inverse

condemnation, conversion and trespass, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional

distress and negligence and/or loss of consortium. A case management scheduling order issued

on June 1, 2006. The order set the deadline for seeking leave to add new parties or to amend

the complaint for June 23, 2006. 

Case 3:06-cv-01145-WHA Document 54 Filed 12/14/06 Page 2 of 6
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

3

On August 8, 2006, Krajewski-Harbert sent to the town a notice of claim, alleging police

official invasion of privacy under state law. The claim related back to December 2005, when

defendants allegedly divulged and disseminated private facts about Krajewski-Harbert, which

culminated in a news article dated February 11, 2006 (Franck Decl. Exh. D). This claim is

parallel to plaintiffs’ extant claim herein under federal law. 

Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for leave to file an amended complaint on

November 17, 2006. The deadline for seeking leave to file an amended complaint had passed as

of June 23, 2006. Based on the discovery of new facts and a denial by the town of plaintiffs’

state tort claim, plaintiffs request leave to include their state claim for invasion of privacy and

make other substantive changes to their claims to conform to proof.

ANALYSIS

1. LEGAL STANDARD.

Leave to amend a complaint shall be freely given when justice so requires under

Rule15(a). This standard is a liberal one. “In 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, etc. — the leave sought should, as the rules require, be

‘freely given.’” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Rule 15(a)

does not apply, however, when a district court has established such a deadline for amended,

pursuant to Rule 16(b). See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607–08

(9th Cir. 1992). Once the Court has entered a scheduling order, the liberal policy favoring

amendments no longer applies. Subsequent amendments are not allowed without a request to

first modify the scheduling order. Id. at 608-09. At that point, any modification must be based

on a showing of good cause. Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294

(9th Cir. 2000). 

2. GOOD CAUSE FOR FILING AMENDED COMPLAINT.

The inquiry under Rule 16(b)’s good-cause standard first focuses on the diligence of the

party seeking the amendment. “The district court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot

Case 3:06-cv-01145-WHA Document 54 Filed 12/14/06 Page 3 of 6
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

4

reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” Johnson, 975 F.2d

at 609 (quoting FRCP 15 advisory committee notes). If the party seeking modification was not

diligent, then the inquiry should end. 

Plaintiffs seek to include a claim against defendants for invasion of privacy under state

law. The California Tort Claims Act governs tort claims against public entities and their

officials. See Cal. Gov. Code 810, et seq. The Act’s requirements thus apply to plaintiffs’

claim. 

The Act requires plaintiffs to present a written claim to the public entity allegedly

responsibly for their injuries before initiating suit on the cause of action. Cal. Gov. Code 945.6. 

Under the Act, no suit for money or damages may be brought against a public entity until a

written claim has been presented to the public entity and the claim either has been acted upon or

is deemed to have been rejected. Cal. Gov. Code 811.2. 

Plaintiffs initially noticed a claim for defendants’ alleged invasion of privacy with the

town, pursuant to the Act. Plaintiffs, however, were denied relief. On August, 25, 2006, the

town responded to Krajewski’s notice, stating that no action was being taken on her claim

because it was not presented within six months after the event or occurrence as is required by

Sections 901 and 911.2 (Franck Decl. Exh. D). Plaintiffs now seek to add this claim to their

complaint in the pending action. 

Plaintiffs argue that they should be allowed to amend their complaint to incorporate their

state claim for invasion of privacy. Plaintiffs contend that they provided the town with timely

notice within six months of their alleged accrual of a cause of action, pursuant to California

Government Code Section 911.4, but were denied relief because of newly adopted California

state tort procedures. Defendants respond arguing only that Rule 16 bars any subsequent

amendment of pleadings after a scheduling order is made unless good cause is shown

(Reply Br. 2). 

Under California Government Code Section 945, plaintiffs had six months after the date

they noticed their claim to file an action. See also Okoro v. City of Oakland, 142 Cal. App. 4th

306, 311 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006). Plaintiffs provided notice of their state tort claim on or about

Case 3:06-cv-01145-WHA Document 54 Filed 12/14/06 Page 4 of 6
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

5

August 1, 2006, which was denied on August 25, 2006. Plaintiffs subsequently moved to

amend their complaint to add this claim on November 7, 2006, a little over two months after

receiving notice of the town’s denial of their claim. 

Plaintiffs also seek to amend their complaint to clarify issues and make other substantive

changes to “conform to proof” based on supplemental events they allege have occurred since

the filing of their original complaint (Br. 3–7). The substantive changes plaintiffs propose

include: (i) new allegations regarding their intentional and negligent infliction of emotional

distress claims, (ii) clarifications of their already alleged privacy claims under federal law, and

(iii) new allegations regarding defendants’ dissemination of plaintiffs’ tax information

(Br. 4–7). Plaintiffs allege that the events that serve as the basis for these new allegations were

discovered as late as September 2006 (Br. 6). 

Plaintiffs showed some diligence by seeking leave to amend their complaint after

complying with the requirements of the Act. Furthermore, plaintiffs acted with plausible

diligence in seeking to amend their existing claims upon learning of new facts supporting their

allegations. Defendants have also not alleged that plaintiffs are acting out of bad faith or with

dilatory motives, thus plaintiffs have shown good cause to amend their complaint. 

3. RISK OF UNDUE PREJUDICE TO DEFENDANTS.

Prejudice to the non-moving party, though not required under Rule 16(b), can supply

additional reasons to deny a motion. Coleman, 232 F.3d at 1295. Delay alone is generally not

sufficient to justify the denial of a motion requesting leave to amend. DCD Programs, Ltd. v.

Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987). A district court, however, may deny a motion for

leave to amend if permitting an amendment would, among other things, cause an undue delay in

the litigation or prejudice the opposing party. Zivkovic v. S. Cal, Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080,

1086 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Defendants do not argue that allowing for plaintiffs’ proposed amendments would result

in prejudice. Given that this discovery cut-off is several months away, and given that both sides

have engaged only in minimal discovery efforts, there is no evidence that defendants would be

unfairly prejudiced if plaintiffs were allowed to amend their claims. Plaintiffs have already

Case 3:06-cv-01145-WHA Document 54 Filed 12/14/06 Page 5 of 6
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

6

pleaded a federal cause of action for invasion of privacy, alleging the same set of facts that also

underlie their state cause of action. The record thus indicates that defendants will not have any

additional burden or increased costs in their discovery efforts. Because defendants have not

shown that they will suffer undue prejudice if plaintiffs are allowed to amend their complaint,

plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend is GRANTED. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend their complaint is

GRANTED. The first amended complaint must be filed by DECEMBER 21, 2006. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 14, 2006. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-01145-WHA Document 54 Filed 12/14/06 Page 6 of 6