Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02615/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02615-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 33:1251 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act)

---

1

18-CV-2615 JLS (WVG)

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

KEVIN T. KELLY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF POWAY, a municipal 

corporation,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18-CV-2615 JLS (WVG)

ORDER (1) GRANTING MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

COMPLAINT; (2) DENYING AS 

MOOT MOTION TO DISMISS; AND 

(3) DENYING AS MOOT EX PARTE 

MOTION TO BE HEARD

(ECF Nos. 10, 22, 30)

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Kevin T. Kelly’s Motion for Leave to Amend 

and Supplement Complaint (“Mot.,” ECF No. 30). Also before the Court are Defendant 

City of Poway’s Response in Opposition to (“Opp’n,” ECF No. 34) and Plaintiff’s Reply 

in Support of (“Reply,” ECF No. 35) the Motion. After reviewing the Parties’ arguments 

and the law, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend.

BACKGROUND

This case came before the Court on November 15, 2018, when Plaintiff, at that time 

proceeding pro se, filed his original complaint against the City of Poway alleging violations 

of the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act. See generally ECF No. 1. The 

Case 3:18-cv-02615-JO-DDL Document 40 Filed 02/07/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

18-CV-2615 JLS (WVG)

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

original complaint was based on Plaintiff’s July 27, 2018 Notice of Violation letter sent to 

the City. See ECF No. 1-2. Before Defendant responded to the original complaint, Plaintiff 

filed a second Notice of Violation letter on November 5, 2018. See ECF No. 6, Ex. 1. 

Plaintiff then filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on January 7, 2019, 

which included the additional facts and claims in the November Notice of Violation letter. 

See ECF No. 6. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the FAC, ECF No. 10, and the Parties 

completed briefing on the motion. See ECF Nos. 16, 20. On May 24, 2019, before the 

Court ruled on Defendant’s Motion, Plaintiff sent a third Notice of Violation letter to the 

City. See ECF No. 30-9. 

On July 25, 2019, counsel for Plaintiff appeared in this case. ECF No. 23. On the 

same day, Plaintiff filed a motion to supplement his pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 15(d). ECF No. 24. Because Plaintiff sought to “add factual allegations 

concerning events that occurred . . . before . . . he filed the original complaint,” the Court 

held that Rule 15(d) was not the “proper vehicle for Plaintiff to alter his pleadings” and 

denied the motion. ECF No. 29 at 1–2 (quoting Rovai v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 

2019 WL 1779586, at *3 (S.D. Cal April 23, 2019)). In the Order denying that motion, the 

Court noted that it would “entertain a properly filed motion under Rule 15(a) to amend the 

complaint.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff then filed the present Motion for Leave Amend. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), a plaintiff may amend their complaint 

once as a matter of course within specified time limits. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). “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)(2). Courts generally grant leave to amend absent a showing of “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, [or] futility of amendment.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 

182 (1962). “Rule 15(a) ‘is to be applied with extreme liberality,’ and whether to permit 

Case 3:18-cv-02615-JO-DDL Document 40 Filed 02/07/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

18-CV-2615 JLS (WVG)

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

amendment is a decision ‘entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court.’” EFG Bank 

AG, Cayman Branch v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co., No. 216CV08104CASGJSX, 2019 WL 

5784739, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2019) (quoting Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. 

Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990); Jordan v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 669 F.2d 1311, 

1324 (9th Cir. 1982)). 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff requests to amend his First Amended Complaint to include additional facts 

and claims contained in his May 24, 2019 60-day Notice of Violation letter. Mot. at 

12–13. This additional information pertains to alleged violations of the Clean Water Act 

occurring in 2017 and 2019. Id. at 13. Plaintiff contends that the proposed amendment is 

not made in bad faith because it is in response to additional facts learned since filing the 

complaint as well as responding to specific arguments in Defendant’s motion to dismiss. 

Id. at 14. Further, Plaintiff contends that there is no prejudice to Defendant because of the 

early stage of this litigation, id. at 15, and that the amendment would not be futile because 

the proposed amended complaint could withstand a motion to dismiss. Id. at 15–24. 

Defendant opposes the motion on two grounds. First, Defendant arguesthat granting 

leave to amend would prejudice Defendant because it has already filed a motion to dismiss. 

Opp’n at 5–8. Defendant contends that it has spent considerable time and resources 

drafting the motion to dismiss and thus allowing amendment and having to refile that 

motion would cause prejudice. Id. at 6. The Court finds Defendant has failed to meet its 

burden to show prejudice. See DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 190 (9th 

Cir. 1987) (noting that party opposing amendment “bears the burden of showing 

prejudice”). Plaintiff’s motion was filed very early in this litigation; Defendant has not 

filed an answer and discovery not begun. While Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss 

and may have spent considerable time and costs to draft the motion, Defendant “cite[s] no 

case holding that prejudice should be measured by litigation expenses incurred before a 

motion to amend is filed.” Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 

(9th Cir. 2001). Moreover, Defendant has failed to show that the time and cost spent filing 

Case 3:18-cv-02615-JO-DDL Document 40 Filed 02/07/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

18-CV-2615 JLS (WVG)

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

the motion to dismiss would be completely wasted if the Court grants leave to amend. 

Defendant may refile its motion and presumably raise many of the same arguments again. 

The Court therefore finds Defendant has failed to show prejudice to warrant denying leave 

to amend. 

Second, Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint confuses

the issuesin this litigation. Id. at 8–9. Defendant argues that the proposed second amended 

complaint “unnecessarily complicate[s] an already complicated pleading.” Id. at 8. 

Defendant also takes issue with Plaintiff captioning the proposed second amended 

complaint as a “supplemental pleading.” Id. The Court cannot agree that this warrants 

denial of leave to amend. The Court finds the additional facts and claims to be substantially 

related to those already in the FAC. And considering all the claims at once would be most 

efficient for the Court. This contention therefore does not weigh in favor of denying leave 

to amend. 

In sum, the Court finds Defendant has not shown there to be any undue prejudice, or 

that there is any bad faith or undue delay on the part of Plaintiff. The Court therefore finds 

leave to amend appropriate. See Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 

1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (“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.”). 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File his 

Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 30). The Court makes clear that it grants the motion 

only under Rule 15(a), not Rule 15(d). The Second Amended Complaint is now the 

operative complaint and will supersede the prior complaint for all purposes. For this 

reason, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10) and 

Plaintiff’s ex parte Motion to be Heard (ECF No. 22). Plaintiff SHALL FILE the 

///

///

Case 3:18-cv-02615-JO-DDL Document 40 Filed 02/07/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

18-CV-2615 JLS (WVG)

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

proposed Second Amended Complaint within seven days of the electronic docketing of 

this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 7, 2020

Case 3:18-cv-02615-JO-DDL Document 40 Filed 02/07/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5