Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00407/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00407-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983bv Bivens Non-Prisoner

---

1

3:19-cv-00407-AJB-AGS

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

T.T.

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, a public 

entity; ELISA KENDALL, an individual; 

BETTY SIEGEL, an individual; MARY 

DEAN COOPER, an individual; FRED 

BYERLEE, an individual; NINA URIBE, 

an individual; DIONNE G. EDWARDSSIMMONS, an individual; DOES 1 

through 20, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-00407-AJB-AGS

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

(Doc. No. 29)

Presently before the Court is Defendants County of San Diego, Elisa Kendall, Fred 

Byerlee, Nina Uribe, and Dionne G. Edwards-Simmons (“Defendants”) motion to strike 

Plaintiff T.T.’s (“Plaintiff”) Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). (Doc. No. 29.)

Defendant Mary Dean Cooper joins in Defendants’ motion to strike. (Doc. No. 38.) For the 

reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s SAC.

/ / / 

/ / /

Case 3:19-cv-00407-AJB-AGS Document 39 Filed 01/31/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

3:19-cv-00407-AJB-AGS

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

I. BACKGROUND

On February 28, 2019, Plaintiff filed her initial complaint for damages alleging a 

violation of a constitutional right to be protected by her foster parent and County of San 

Diego. (Doc. No. 1.) On March 7, 2019, Plaintiff realized that Defendants Nancy Uribe 

and Dionne G. Edwards-Simmons were not properly named in the caption of the pleading. 

Realizing her mistake, Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion to amend/correct the caption of 

her complaint to add the proper names. (Doc. No. 7.) The Court subsequently granted the 

Plaintiff’s motion to amend/correct the complaint. (Doc. No. 8.) On March 22, 2019, 

Plaintiff filed her Corrected Complaint for Damages (hereinafter “First Amended 

Complaint” or “FAC”) with the corrected names of the Defendants listed in the caption of 

the pleading. (Doc. No. 9).

On May 6, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss claiming Plaintiff’s claims 

were time-barred and that there was no plausibly plead Monell claim against the County of 

San Diego. (Doc. No. 11.) On May 29, 2019, Defendants Fred Byerlee, Nina Uribe, and 

Dionne G. Edwards-Simmons (collectively “Social Workers”) filed their motion to dismiss 

arguing Plaintiff’s claims were time-barred and that each were entitled to qualified 

immunity. (Doc. No. 22.) On June 19, 2019, in response to Defendants’ motions to dismiss, 

Plaintiff filed her SAC. (Doc. No. 27.)

The Court then found Defendants’ motions to dismiss moot in light of Plaintiff’s 

SAC. Defendants’ filed the instant motion to strike Plaintiff’s SAC on July 3, 2019. (Doc. 

No. 29.) Plaintiff opposes the motion. This order follows.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), on its own or by motion, the Court 

“may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, 

impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). The purpose of Rule 12(f) is to 

“avoid the expenditure of time and money that must arise from litigating spurious issues 

by dispensing with those issues prior to trial....” Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. Robins Co., 697 

F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1983). The Court must view the pleadings in the light most 

Case 3:19-cv-00407-AJB-AGS Document 39 Filed 01/31/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

3:19-cv-00407-AJB-AGS

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

favorable to the non-moving party. Cal. Dept. of Toxic Substances Control v. Alco Pac. 

Inc., 217 F.Supp.2d 1028, 1033 (C.D. Cal. 2002). “Any doubt concerning the import of the 

allegations to be stricken weighs in favor of denying the motion to strike.” In re Wal-Mart 

Stores, Inc. Wage & Hour Litig., 505 F. Supp. 2d 609, 614 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (citation 

omitted).

III. DISCUSSION

Defendants move to strike Plaintiffs’ SAC arguing (1) Plaintiff exhausted her right 

to amend as a matter of course, (2) Plaintiff did not have the Court’s leave to file the SAC, 

and (3) allowing the amendment would be futile because the statute of limitations bars 

Plaintiff’s action.

1. Exhaustion of Right to Amend Claim

Defendants argue Plaintiff exhausted her right to amend as a matter of course when 

she filed her FAC on March 22, 2019. (Doc. No. 29 at 4.) Defendants further explain that 

because Plaintiff filed her FAC, she can no longer amend without Defendants’ written 

consent or leave of court pursuant to Rule 15(a). (Id. at 4.) Additionally, Defendants state 

Plaintiff did in fact amend her complaint when she corrected the caption to include the 

names of the social worker Defendants. (Id. at 4.) On the other hand, Plaintiff argues this 

cosmetic correction to the complaint was not an amendment. Plaintiff urges the Court to 

recognize the validity of her SAC. (Doc. No. 35 at 2.) The Court finds that Plaintiff’s 

corrected complaint was an amendment within the meaning of Rule 15(a). However, as 

will be discussed below, Plaintiff first amended her complaint with the Court’s leave 

pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2). Thus, Plaintiff had not utilized her Rule 15(a)(1)(B) right to 

amend as a matter of course.

Rule 15(a) provides:

(1) Amending as a Matter of Course. A party may amend its 

pleading once as a matter of course within:

(A) 21 days after serving it, or

(B) If the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is 

required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 

Case 3:19-cv-00407-AJB-AGS Document 39 Filed 01/31/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

3:19-cv-00407-AJB-AGS

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

days after service of a motion under 12(b), (e), or (f), 

whichever is earlier.

(2) Other Amendments. In all other cases, a party may amend 

its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the 

court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so 

requires. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The Ninth Circuit in Ramirez held that a “[p]laintiff’s 15(a)(2) 

amendment, filed first in time, cannot be construed as a waiver or exhaustion of his 

automatic right to amend under 15(a)(1), so long as that amendment was timely.” Ramirez 

v. Cnty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015). There, Ramirez filed a 

first amended complaint with the consent of the court pursuant to 15(a)(2). Id. at 1004. 

Shortly after the first amended complaint was filed, the County of San Bernardino filed a 

motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Id. Rather than filing an opposition to the 

County of San Bernardino’s motion to dismiss, Ramirez attempted to file a Second 

Amended Complaint. Id. The court denied Ramirez’s Second Amended Complaint because 

leave of court was not sought or granted. Id. Ramirez appealed this decision and the Ninth 

Circuit found that Rule 15 provides different ways to amend a complaint, and a plaintiff 

may amend in whatever order he sees fit, so long as he complies with Rule 15. Id. at 1007.

The Ninth Circuit further reasoned that “Rule 15 is organized substantively, not 

chronologically.” Id. Therefore, a plaintiff “may amend in whatever order he sees fit 

provided he complies with the respective requirements found within 15(a)(1) and 

15(a)(2).” Id. 

The facts of Ramirez are nearly identical to the case at hand. Here, the Court granted 

Plaintiff’s ex parte motion to correct/amend her initial complaint, allowing an amendment 

within the guidelines of Rule 15(a)(2). The filing of the FAC did not exhaust Plaintiff’s 

right as a matter of course to later amend after service of a motion under Rule 12(b). 

Following the holding in Ramirez, Plaintiff was permitted to amend her complaint in 

whatever order, so long as she complied with the rule itself. In this instance, Plaintiff 

complied with Rule 15 when she first requested leave to amend then later filed her SAC. 

Case 3:19-cv-00407-AJB-AGS Document 39 Filed 01/31/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

3:19-cv-00407-AJB-AGS

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

Moreover, Plaintiff timely filed her SAC as a matter of course as the SAC was filed twentyone days after Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Therefore, this Court finds Plaintiff’s SAC

was permissible under Rule 15(a). 

2. Request Leave to File Claim

On March 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion to amend/correct her 

complaint. (Doc. No. 7.) Plaintiff’s request was granted by the Court, allowing Plaintiff to 

correct the mistake on the caption of the initial complaint. (Doc. No. 8.) Defendants argue 

that Plaintiff failed to request written consent or leave from the Court to file its SAC. (Doc. 

No. 29 at 4.) However, such consent or leave from the Court was unnecessary because

Plaintiff reserved her right to amend as a matter of course. Plaintiff’s FAC was filed with 

permission by the Court. (Doc. No. 9.) Defendants concede in its reply to Plaintiff’s 

opposition that “the Court’s order states, ‘Judge Battaglia: [grants Plaintiff’s] ex parte 

motion for leave to file an amended complaint.” (Doc. No. 36 at 3.) 

As discussed above, Rule 15(a)(2) permits a party to amend its pleading with the 

court’s leave. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “Five factors are taken into account to assess the 

propriety of a motion for leave to amend: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing 

party, futility of the amendment, and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the 

complaint.” Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles, 754 F.3d 1147, 1154 (9th Cir. 2014) 

(quoting Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004)). These factors do not 

“merit equal weight,” and “it is the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that 

carries the greatest weight.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 

(9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). “Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the 

remaining [ ] factors, there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave 

to amend.” Id. (emphasis in original).

The grant or denial of leave to amend is in the Court’s discretion. Swanson v. U.S. 

Forest Serv., 87 F.3d 339, 343 (9th Cir. 1996). “In exercising this discretion, a court must 

be guided by the underlying purpose of Rule 15 to facilitate decision on the merits, rather 

than on the pleadings or technicalities.” United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 

Case 3:19-cv-00407-AJB-AGS Document 39 Filed 01/31/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

3:19-cv-00407-AJB-AGS

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

1981). Consequently, the policy in favor of granting leave to amend is applied with extreme 

liberality. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 181–82 (1962).

On March 20, 2019, the Court exercised its discretion and granted Plaintiff’s leave 

to amend her original complaint. (Doc. No. 8.) Although there is a dispute between the 

parties about whether Plaintiff’s FAC was merely cosmetic, such issue does not play a role 

in determining whether Plaintiff properly filed a SAC. This is because Plaintiff requested 

permission from the Court to file the FAC, making the amendment proper pursuant to Rule 

15(a). Consequently, Plaintiff maintained her right to file an amended complaint as a matter 

of course without the Court’s leave. Therefore, the Court finds Plaintiff properly followed 

the guidelines laid out in Rule 15(a). 

3. Statute of Limitations Claim

Defendants attempt to argue Plaintiff’s case is time-barred due to a statute of 

limitations issue. The Court finds the statute of limitations argument in the motion to strike 

improper and therefore, declines to address such an issue at this stage. However, the Court 

makes no determination on the merits of the statute of limitation issue. Accordingly, 

Defendants may raise these arguments in a responsive pleading to Plaintiff’s SAC. 

IV. CONCLUSION

In light of the above, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s 

Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 29.) Defendants will have twenty-one (21) days

after the date of this Order to file a responsive pleading.

Dated: January 31, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-00407-AJB-AGS Document 39 Filed 01/31/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6