Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02541/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02541-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981cv Civil Rights

---

– 1 – 14-cv-2541 DMS (BLM)

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

SAMUEL W. GIBBS III,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 14-cv-2541 DMS (BLM)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION 

TO AMEND COMPLAINT

v.

SAN DIEGO CHILD SUPPORT 

SERVICES,

Defendant.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Samuel W. Gibbs III’s motion 

to amend complaint, seeking to substitute County of San Diego for San Diego Child 

Support Services (“SDCSS”) as a defendant. For the following reasons, the Court 

grants the motion.

I.

BACKGROUND

On October 24, 2014, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against 

Defendants Shari L. Kugler and SDCSS. After Plaintiff’s several failed attempts to 

effect service on Kugler, the Court dismissed the complaint against Kugler on 

January 26, 2017. 

On December 27, 2016, Plaintiff filed a request for entry of default against 

SDCSS, which the Clerk of Court granted on January 3, 2017. Subsequently, on 

Case 3:14-cv-02541-DMS-BLM Document 50 Filed 04/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
– 2 – 14-cv-2541 DMS (BLM)

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

February 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment against SDCSS. On 

February 23, 2017, County of San Diego moved to set aside the default entered 

against its department, SDCSS, arguing defective service was made on an improper 

defendant because a department of a municipality may not be sued. In response to 

the motion to set aside default, Plaintiff filed a motion for joinder of parties, 

requesting that County of San Diego be joined as a defendant.

On March 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend complaint accompanied 

by a proposed first amended complaint (“FAC”), seeking to substitute County of San 

Diego as a defendant in lieu of SDCSS. County of San Diego filed a response in 

opposition to the motion. Plaintiff did not file a reply. Instead, Plaintiff filed a 

motion for pretrial conference. 

II.

DISCUSSION

Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that district courts 

“should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

15(a)(2). “This policy is to be applied with extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, 

LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted).

“[T]he ‘rule favoring liberality in amendments to pleadings is particularly important 

for [a] pro se litigant. Presumably unskilled in the law, the pro se litigant is far more 

prone to making errors in pleading than the person who benefits from the 

representation of counsel.’” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(quoting Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987)).

In determining whether to allow an amendment, courts consider whether there 

is “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, [and] futility of 

amendment[.]” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); see also Smith v. Pac. 

Prop. Dev. Co., 358 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing the Forman factors). 

Case 3:14-cv-02541-DMS-BLM Document 50 Filed 04/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
– 3 – 14-cv-2541 DMS (BLM)

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

“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 (citing DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 185 (9th 

Cir. 1987)); Howey v. United States, 481 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1973) (“the 

crucial factor is the resulting prejudice to the opposing party.”). “The party opposing 

amendment bears the burden of showing prejudice.” DCD Programs, 833 F.2d at 

187. “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 (italics in original).

County of San Diego does not contend the proposed FAC would impose 

undue prejudice or that Plaintiff has exhibited undue delay or bad faith. Indeed, the 

Court finds no undue prejudice exists as to County of San Diego, because Plaintiff 

is not seeking to add new claims or allege new facts with this amendment. Moreover,

given Plaintiff’s pro se status and lack of legal expertise, the Court does not find any 

instance of undue delay or bad faith on the part of Plaintiff in bringing this motion. 

County of San Diego’s sole argument against granting leave to amend is futility. 

However, most courts recognize that “‘[d]enial of leave to amend on [futility] 

ground[s] is rare.’” Defazio v. Hollister, Inc., No. CIV 04-1358 WBS GGH, 2008 

WL 2825045, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 21, 2008) (quoting Netbula v. Distinct Corp., 

212 F.R.D. 534, 539 (N.D. Cal. 2003). To the extent County of San Diego 

challenges the merits of the FAC, the Court defers consideration of the merits until 

after Plaintiff files the FAC. See Netbula, 212 F.R.D. at 539 (“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.”); Hynix 

Semiconductor Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., No. C-04--4708 VRW, 2006 WL 3093812, at 

*2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2006) (Defendant’s challenges to the merits of a proposed 

amended pleading “should be addressed in a motion to dismiss or for summary 

judgment, not in an opposition to the present motion for leave to amend.”). 

Case 3:14-cv-02541-DMS-BLM Document 50 Filed 04/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
– 4 – 14-cv-2541 DMS (BLM)

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

Accordingly, after considering the Foman factors, the Court finds that leave to 

amend should be granted pursuant to Rule 15(a).

III.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint is granted. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against SDCCS and 

Defendant’s motion to set aside default are denied as moot.

1

 Within fourteen days 

from the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall file the proposed FAC, which is attached 

to the motion to amend complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2017

 1 The Court also denies Plaintiff’s motion for pretrial conference because this 

motion is not proper at this stage of the proceeding.

Case 3:14-cv-02541-DMS-BLM Document 50 Filed 04/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4