Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-00082/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-00082-10/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Deniz Bolbol, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

City of San Jose, et al.,

Defendants. /

NO. C 04-00082 JW

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS'

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

On the evening of January 6, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Shorten Time for a hearing

on their Motion for Leave to file a Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs requested that the

underlying motion be heard on January 9, 2006, the day before the trial for this case was scheduled

to commence. Since Plaintiffs' motion was filed after the Court's business hours, the Court was

unable to respond to it. (See Docket Item No. 199.) 

On the morning of January 9, 2006, HP Pavilion Management filed its opposition to

Plaintiff's' motion to amend. The city of San Jose has yet to file any opposition, but counsel for the

City did appear on January 9, 2006 to challenge the motion. The Court did not call the case because

Case 5:04-cv-00082-JW Document 219 Filed 01/18/06 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 2

the Court had not approved the motion shortening time. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion for Shorten

Time is moot.

On January 10, 2006, when the parties appeared at 9 a.m. for jury selection, Plaintiffs orally

made their motion for leave to file the Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs essentially contend that

in light of newly discovered evidence, they wish to amend their complaint to add a cause of action

under California Civil Code 52.1. The Court took the motion under submission for consideration.

On January 11, 2006, the Court issued an order regarding the objections Defendants had

made in answering Plaintiffs' Corrected Second Amended Complaint. (See Docket Item No. 209.) 

That Order was intended to address Plaintiffs' error in leaving out a claim under the California

Liberty of Speech Clause only, not Plaintiffs' Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1. However, the Court had

inadvertently interchanged the two statutes. By this Order, the Court corrects its typographical

error. Plaintiffs' Corrected Second Amended Complaint remains the operative Complaint with the

additional claim of a violation under the California Liberty of Speech Clause and Plaintiffs' prayer

for relief for this claim is limited to a declaratory or injunctive judgment.

With respect to Plaintiffs' Motion for leave to file a Third Amend Complaint to add Cal. Civ.

Code § 52.1, the Court made its ruling on the record during the January 17, 2006 proceedings. 

Essentially, the Court found that unlike their California Liberty of Speech Clause claim, Plaintiffs

have indeed abandoned their Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1. In their Application to File Second Amended

Complaint, Plaintiffs stated that: "Plaintiffs' proposed amended complaint responds to the City's

motion for judgment on the pleadings by (1) specifying the City policy underlying Plaintiffs' action

under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and (2) withdrawing Plaintiffs' causes of action under California Civil Code

section 52.1(a)." (See Docket Item No. 93, at 6, fn.2.) Clearly, Plaintiffs had voluntarily withdrawn

this claim. 

With respect to Plaintiffs' contention they would not have abandoned this claim had

Defendants properly produced the electronic mail for which they rely upon for this motion,

Plaintiffs' statement in their moving papers proves fatal to this argument. Plaintiffs state: "Plaintiffs

Case 5:04-cv-00082-JW Document 219 Filed 01/18/06 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 3

in this motion thus request only that they be permitted to add a cause of action to the complaint

whose elements have already been fully explored in discovery in the context of other asserted

claims." (See Docket Item No. 201, at 3.) This statement demonstrates that the electronic mail

Plaintiffs so heavily relied upon adds nothing new to the information Plaintiffs have had in their

possession. It appears that the subject matter of the August 29, 2003 electronic mail has long been

known to Plaintiffs. Thus, if the elements for the cause of action have already been fully explored in

discovery, Plaintiffs have had ample time to ask for leave to amend their complaint to reassert the

Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1 claim. Plaintiffs did not raise this issue with the Court during either the

Preliminary Pretrial Conference nor the Final Pretrial Conference. Accordingly, the Court DENIES

Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to file a Third Amended Complaint. 

Dated: January 18, 2006 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-00082-JW Document 219 Filed 01/18/06 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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Bryan W Vereschagin bvereschagin@gonzalezleigh.com

Christine L. Garcia christine@animalattorney.com

David Michael Rollo david.rollo@cco.sccgov.org

Frank R. Ubhaus fru@berliner.com

G. Whitney Leigh wleigh@gonzalezleigh.com

James McManis jmcmanis@mfmlaw.com

Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria jvalenzuelasantamaria@cooley.com

Juan Enrique Pearce epearce@gonzalezleigh.com

Lizbeth Brown lizbethbrown@aol.com

Marwa Elzankaly melzankaly@mfmlaw.com

Matt Gonzalez mgonzalez@gonzalezleigh.com

Michael J. Dodson cao.main@sanjoseca.gov

Nima Nami nimanami@hotmail.com

Nima Nami nimanami@hotmail.com

Nora Valerie Frimann cao.main@sanjoseca.gov

Rita A. Hao rhao@gonzalezleigh.com

Rosa Tsongtaatarii Rosa.tsongtaatarii@ci.sj.ca.us

Shannon N. Cogan shannon.cogan@berliner.com

Thomas P. Murphy tpm@berliner.com

Dated: January 18, 2006 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Melissa Peralta

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:04-cv-00082-JW Document 219 Filed 01/18/06 Page 4 of 4