Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-04282/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-04282-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REDWOOD CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C-01-4282 SC 

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO

FILE AMENDED ANSWER

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendants County of Alameda et al. ("Defendants") filed a

Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). Dkt. No. 251. Plaintiffs Redwood

Christian Schools et al. ("Plaintiffs") oppose Defendants' Motion. 

Dkt. No. 291.

II. BACKGROUND

In their Motion, Defendants seek to amend their Answer to: 

1) add new affirmative defenses, 2) admit certain allegations, and

3) clarify certain denials. In their Opposition, Plaintiffs state

no opposition to Defendants' proposed amendments to admit certain

allegations and clarify certain denials. 

//

//

Case 3:01-cv-04282-SC Document 330 Filed 01/19/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Once the opposing party has filed a responsive pleading, a

party may amend its pleadings "only by leave of court or by

written consent of the adverse party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). 

Rule 15(a) provides that such leave "shall be freely given when

justice so requires." Id. This rule is applied with "extreme

liberality." Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d

1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003). Nonetheless, the decision to grant or

deny a motion to amend is committed to the discretion of the

district court, and the court may deny leave where there is "any

apparent or declared reason" for doing so. Foman v. Davis, 371

U.S. 178, 182 (1962). The Ninth Circuit has identified "four

factors relevant to whether a motion for leave to amend pleadings

should be denied: undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive,

futility of amendment, and prejudice to the opposing party." 

United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 1981). 

"Prejudice is the touchstone of the inquiry under rule 15(a)." 

Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. Absent prejudice, there is a

presumption in favor of granting leave to amend. Id.

In addition, "[a] motion for leave to amend may be denied if

it appears to be futile or legally insufficient." Miller v.

Rykoff-Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 1988). "[A]

proposed amendment is futile only if no set of facts can be proved

under the amendment to the pleadings that would constitute a valid

and sufficient claim or defense." Id. Thus, evaluating whether a

proposed amendment is futile is guided by the same standard as a

Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Id. 

Case 3:01-cv-04282-SC Document 330 Filed 01/19/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IV. DISCUSSION

On December 8, 2006, this Court permitted Defendants to file

the present Motion, which contrary to Plaintiffs' assertions, does

not violate a prior scheduling order. 

Plaintiffs have not made the requisite showing of prejudice

to defeat Defendants' Motion. No additional discovery is required

for Plaintiffs to respond to the proposed new affirmative

defenses. The questions of law raised by these proposed defenses

have already been addressed by the parties in discovery. See

Pls.' Opp'n at 7. Indeed, Plaintiffs and Defendants have already

fully briefed these issues of law in their motions in limine. 

The remaining three factors also weigh in favor of permitting

amendment. First, there is no evidence of undue delay. When

Defendants' new counsel discovered the issue, they contacted

Plaintiffs to discuss a stipulation to amend the answer and filed

their Motion soon after agreement could not be reached. See Meny

Decl., ¶ 2-3, Dkt. No. 252. Similarly, there is no evidence of

bad faith or dilatory motive. 

Finally, the amendments would not be futile. A motion to

amend the answer will be denied on the ground of futility only if

it appears beyond doubt that the defendants can prove no set of

facts in support of the proposed amendment. See, generally, 

Levine v. Diamanthuset, Inc., 950 F.2d 1478, 1482 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Here, Defendants may be able to prove that the new affirmative

defenses have merit. The Court will consider Defendants' legal

arguments on these issues in its review of the motions in limine.

In summary, the relevant factors weigh in favor of granting

Case 3:01-cv-04282-SC Document 330 Filed 01/19/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

leave to amend; there is no evidence in the record that

Defendants' Motion constitutes undue delay, bad faith, futility of

amendment, or prejudice to the opposing party. 

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, Defendants' Motion for Leave

to File an Amended Answer is GRANTED. Defendants should e-file a

signed and dated Amended Answer by January 25, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: January 19, 2007

____________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:01-cv-04282-SC Document 330 Filed 01/19/07 Page 4 of 4