Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00708/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00708-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BONNIE FARLEY, an individual, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

)

ROBERT SILVA, a City of Livingston )

Police Officer; EMPLOYEES OF THE )

CITY OF LIVINGSTON POLICE ) 

DEPARTMENT as DOES 1 through 20; )

EMPLOYESS OF THE COUNTY OF )

MERCED as DOES 11 through 20; ) 

NELSON, a City of Merced Police )

Officer, RODRIGUEZ, a City of Merced )

Police Detective, and DOES 11 )

through 30, )

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

11-cv-708 LJO GSA

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE 

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

(Document 30)

INTRODUCTION

On August 29, 2011, Plaintiff, Bonnie Farley (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion for Leave to File

a Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”). (Doc. 30). Defendants Rodriguez and Nelson filed a

non-opposition to the motion on September 22, 2011. (Doc. 32). No other defendants filed an

opposition. The Court has reviewed the papers and has determined that this matter is suitable for

decision without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). Accordingly, the hearing set for

October 21, 2011, at 9:30 am is VACATED. Plaintiff’s Motion to File a Third Amended

Complaint is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This action was filed on May 3, 2011. (Doc. 1). The original complaint named Robert

1

Case 1:11-cv-00708-LJO-GSA Document 35 Filed 10/18/11 Page 1 of 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

Silva, a police officer with the City of Livingston Police Department; the City of Livingston

Police Department; and the County of Merced as defendants. The complaint alleged a violation

of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on Plaintiff’s arrest in January and April 2011, after an alleged

shoplifting incident at Kohls Department store in Merced, California. Id. 

On June 1, 2011, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint alleging a violation of 42

U.S.C. § 1983, false arrest, false detention, and false imprisonment against the same defendants

except that she listed doe defendants for unnamed employees of each of the public entities. 

(Doc. 8).

On June 15, 2011, Defendant City of Livingston Police Department filed a Motion to

Dismiss the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 11). In response, Plaintiff filed a Motion to

Amend the Complaint. (Doc. 13). On June 24, 2011, the Court denied the City of Livingston

Police Department’s Motion to Dismiss and granted Plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended

Complaint. (Doc. 14). Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) on June 27,

2011. The SAC alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, false arrest, false detention, and false

imprisonment and named Police Officer Robert Silva; unnamed employees of the Livingston

Police Department; unnamed employees of the County of Merced; Officer Nelson of the City of

Merced Police; and Detective Rodriguez of the City of Merced Police as Defendants.

On August 29, 2011, Plaintiff filed the instant motion requesting leave to file a third

amended complaint (“TAC”). The basis of the motion is that after completing discovery,

Plaintiff determined that the correct Livingston police officer involved in this incident is Dane

Villareal rather than Robert Silva. Additionally, Plaintiff has determined that City of Merced

Police Officer Nelson and City of Merced Police Detective Rodriguez were not involved in this

incident. Instead, the correct City of Merced police officer involved in the incident is Leone

Pintabono. Plaintiff seeks to substitute these defendants in this action. Plaintiff contends there

are no other changes in the amended complaint. 

DISCUSSION

Under Rule 15(a), a plaintiff may amend his complaint once “as a matter of course,” and

without leave of court, before a response has been filed. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1); Bonin v.

2

Case 1:11-cv-00708-LJO-GSA Document 35 Filed 10/18/11 Page 2 of 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

Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995). However, a party can only amend the pleading with

the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave once a responsive pleading has been

filed. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). Here, Defendants filed a responsive pleading to Plaintiff’s SAC so

leave of the court is required.

Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 15(a) provides that a court “should freely give leave [to amend] when

justice so requires.” The United States Supreme Court has stated:

[i]n 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, futility of amendment, etc. – the

leave sought should, as the rules require, be “freely given.”

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 

This policy is “to be applied with extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon,

Inc., 316 F. 3d 1048, 1052 (9 2003) th (citations omitted). The Ninth Circuit has summarized these

factors to include the following: (1) undue delay; (2) bad faith; (3) prejudice to the opponent; and

(4) futility of amendment. Loehr v. Ventura County Cmty. Coll. Dist., 743 F.2d 1310, 1319 (9th

Cir. 1984). 

The Court has examined all of the factors listed above. Defendants Nelson and

Rodriguez have filed a non-opposition to the motion and the other Defendants have not filed any

oppositions. Plaintiff’s amendments appear reasonable and seek to name the proper defendants. 

There is no evidence that this amendment will cause undue delay or that it will cause prejudice to

Defendants. Similarly, there is nothing to suggest that the amendment was made in bad faith. 

Therefore, leave to amend will be granted. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for the above reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion

for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint is GRANTED. The Third Amended Complaint is

deemed filed and served on the existing defendants as of the date of the signing of this Order. 

Plaintiff shall serve the newly added Defendants (Defendants Dane Villareal and Leone

Pintabono) within ten days of the issuance of this order. All Defendants shall file an answer to

the amended pleading no later than twenty-one (21) days after the service of the TAC.

3

Case 1:11-cv-00708-LJO-GSA Document 35 Filed 10/18/11 Page 3 of 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

Additionally, the Clerk o f the Court is ordered to terminate Robert Silva, Officer Nelson,

and Detective Rodriguez as defendants as they have been dismissed from this action with the

filing of the TAC. Additionally, City of Livingston Police Officer Dane Villareal and City of

Merced Police Officer Leon Pintabono shall be added to the docket as these two individuals are

newly named Defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 17, 2011 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 1:11-cv-00708-LJO-GSA Document 35 Filed 10/18/11 Page 4 of 4