Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01080/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01080-0/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

1

 Generally, Plaintiff calls the Court before filing motions to obtain a hearing date. In this

instance, the Court declined to give Plaintiff a hearing date and informed him that the Court would

handle the matter on an ex parte basis. Therefore, the Court overrules Defendant’s objection to

Plaintiff’s motion on the ground Plaintiff failed to obtain a hearing date.

- 1 - 11cv1080

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD SHAPIRO,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv1080 DMS (MDD)

vs. ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT

[Docket No. 41]

CITY OF CARLSBAD, et al.,

Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a Second Amended

Complaint. Plaintiff filed his original motion on October 27, 2011,1

 and Defendant City of Carlsbad

(“Defendant”) filed an opposition on November 3, 2011. On November 10, 2011, Plaintiff filed an

amended motion, to which Defendant filed an opposition and Plaintiff filed a reply. For the reasons

discussed below, the Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff’s motion.

I.

BACKGROUND

On March 11, 2011, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the present case in San Diego Superior

Court. In the original Complaint, Plaintiff alleged ten claims for relief: (1) violation 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

Case 3:11-cv-01080-CAB-KSC Document 56 Filed 12/07/11 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

- 2 - 11cv1080

(2) violation of the California Constitution, (3) violation of California’s Brown Act, (4) false arrest, (5)

false imprisonment, (6) civil assault and battery, (7) invasion of privacy, (8) malicious prosecution, (9)

civil conspiracy and (10) intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendant removed the case to this

Court on May 17, 2011, and filed its Answer on May 23, 2011. 

On September 29, 2011, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). The FAC adds a

number of individual Defendants and omits a number of claims, including Plaintiff’s claim for malicious

prosecution. Along with the FAC, Plaintiff filed a motion for relief pursuant to California Government

Code § 946.6(a). The following day, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. 

On October 21, 2011, Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings and a motion to

dismiss the FAC. The present motion followed.

II.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff seeks leave to file a Second Amended Complaint to add seven individual Defendants

and to reassert his malicious prosecution claim. Defendant opposes the motion on two grounds: First,

it argues the Court should not consider Plaintiff’s motion until all Defendants named in the First

Amended Complaint have been served and appeared in this case. Second, Defendant asserts it would

be futile to allow Plaintiff to allege a claim for malicious prosecution, therefore that request should be

denied. 

Under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, leave to amend a party’s pleading “shall

be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). In accordance with this Rule, the

Supreme Court has stated, 

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, futility of amendment, etc. -- the leave sought should,

as the rules require, be “freely given.” 

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

Of these factors, the Ninth Circuit has stated “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). The party opposing the amendment bears the burden of showing prejudice. DCD

Case 3:11-cv-01080-CAB-KSC Document 56 Filed 12/07/11 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

- 3 - 11cv1080

Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186-87 (9th Cir. 1987). 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. 

As stated above, Defendant’s first argument in support of its opposition to Plaintiff’s motion is

that Plaintiff should be required to serve all Defendants named in the FAC prior to the Court granting

Plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. Notably, Defendant fails to cite any rule or case

law that imposes this requirement. Therefore, this argument does not warrant denial of the motion.

The only other argument Defendant raises in opposition to the motion is one of futility.

Specifically, Defendant asserts it would be futile to allow Plaintiff to allege a claim for malicious

prosecution because it would be absolutely immune from that claim and because Plaintiff failed to file

a government claim for malicious prosecution. Defendant is correct that it is entitled to absolute

immunity from Plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim. See Cal. Govt. Code § 821.6; Asgari v. City of

Los Angeles, 15 Cal. 4th 744, 753 n.7 (1997). Under these circumstances, it would be futile to allow

Plaintiff leave to amend to add this claim. See Hutt v. Pierce County, No. C09-5271BHS, 2010 WL

1410710, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 1, 2010) (finding amendment would be futile where court dismissed

claim based on finding of absolute immunity). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for leave to file a Second

Amended Complaint that includes a claim for malicious prosecution is denied. Otherwise, Plaintiff’s

motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint is granted. 

III.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file

a Second Amended Complaint. Specifically, the Court grants the motion to the extent Plaintiff wishes

to name additional individual Defendants, but denies the motion to the extent Plaintiff wishes to add a

claim for malicious prosecution. Plaintiff shall file a Second Amended Complaint in accordance with

this Order on or before December 16, 2011. Plaintiff is reminded that his Second Amended Complaint

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:11-cv-01080-CAB-KSC Document 56 Filed 12/07/11 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

- 4 - 11cv1080

“must be retyped and filed so that it is complete in itself without reference to the superseded pleading.”

Civil Local Rule 15.1. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 7, 2011

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-01080-CAB-KSC Document 56 Filed 12/07/11 Page 4 of 4