Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00799/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00799-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

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

DORIS RAY KNOX; JERRY WAYNE 

KNOX; JEREMY EDWARD MOORE, 

individually and as successor-in-interest to 

VERONICA LYNN CANTER, deceased,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF FRESNO, a municipal 

corporation;

EDWARD CHRISTOPHER LOUCHREN,

individually and in his capacity as a police 

officer for the CITY OF FRESNO; 

DOUGLAS EDWARD COX, individually 

and in his capacity as a police officer for the 

CITY OF FRESNO,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00799-EPG

ORDER ON MOTION TO AMEND 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

(ECF No. 90)

On June 13, 2016, this Court heard the Motion to Amend the First Amended Complaint

of Plaintiffs Doris Ray Knox, Jerry Wayne Knox, and Jeremy Edward Moore (APlaintiffs@). 

(ECF No. 90.) Plaintiffs appeared by counsel Arturo Gonzalez, Wesley Overson, Robert 

Esposito, and Sabrina Larson. Defendants appeared by counsel Bruce Praet. The Court further 

considered the arguments of counsel on the record at the time of the hearing. The Court ruled 

from the bench on the motion and incorporates that ruling herein. For the reasons described on 

Case 1:14-cv-00799-EPG Document 141 Filed 06/15/16 Page 1 of 3
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

the record and in this Order, the Court issues the following written order confirming its rulings

on Plaintiffs‟ motion to amend. 

Plaintiff asks for leave to amend the First Amended Complaint to claim that the City of 

Fresno is directly liable under a negligence theory for failing to properly train Defendants 

Edward Louchren and Douglas Cox. For the reasons described in detail at the May 27, 2016 

hearing, Plaintiffs‟ First Amended Complaint only asserted liability against the City of Fresno 

for negligence based on a vicarious liability theory. The Court does not believe that the First 

Amended Complaint alleges a direct negligence claim against the City of Fresno. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that amendments shall be granted 

“freely when justice so requires.” The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that “this 

standard changes and becomes progressively more difficult to meet as litigation proceeds 

toward trial. Once the district court enters a scheduling order setting forth a deadline for the 

amendment of pleadings, modifications are allowed only upon a showing of „good cause.‟ See

Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir.1992). 

And once a pretrial order has been entered pursuant to Rule 16(e) setting forth the parties and 

issues for trial, modifications are allowed „only to prevent manifest injustice.‟” Byrd v. Guess, 

137 F.3d 1126, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 1998), superseded by statute on other grounds. “The district 

court should consider four factors in determining whether to modify the parties' pretrial order: 

(1) the degree of prejudice or surprise to the defendants if the order is modified; (2) the ability 

of the defendants to cure any prejudice; (3) the impact of the modification on the orderly and 

efficient conduct of the case; and (4) any degree of willfulness or bad faith on the part of the 

party seeking the modification.” Id., citing United States v. First Nat’l Bank of Circle, 652 F.2d 

882, 887 (9th Cir. 1981).

The amendment that Plaintiffs seek is not a minor amendment. Rather, Plaintiffs seek a 

theory of liability that might render the City of Fresno liable even if the individual police 

officer defendants are not. Neither party provided any law establishing that such a claim is 

viable under the law. In other words, neither party showed that the City of Fresno could be 

Case 1:14-cv-00799-EPG Document 141 Filed 06/15/16 Page 2 of 3
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

legally responsible for the death of Veronica Canter solely because it failed to adequately train 

its officers under a theory of negligence under California state law. 

The Court conducted its own research, but found no Ninth Circuit or California case 

directly on point. Other jurisdictions have differed. Some jurisdictions, for example, impose a 

high burden of proving a special relationship between the parties, beyond any duty owed to the 

general public. See, e.g., Velez v. City of New York, 730 F.3d 128, 135 (2d Cir. 2013); Valdez v. 

City of New York, 18 N.Y.3d 69, 93 (2011). Others required a showing of gross negligence. 

The factual requirements vary as well, with some requiring evidence of types of training by 

similarly situated municipalities. 

Simply put, these are complicated issues that should not be decided on the day before 

trial while final trial preparations are in progress. The Court is also mindful that this issue was 

raised only once the Court signaled its decision on Monell bifurcation and could thus be seen as 

a merely strategic end run around that decision and to place Monell liability facts before the 

jury in the individual liability phase. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that no manifest injustice would result from the denial of 

leave to amend. The motion to amend (ECF No. 90) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 14, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00799-EPG Document 141 Filed 06/15/16 Page 3 of 3