Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04757/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04757-14/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NOVENDER FLEMING,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

NADIA CLARK, et al.,

Defendant(s). 

VICTOR JONES,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

NADIA CLARK, et al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C09-1613 BZ

and Consolidated Case

No. C09-4757 BZ

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Before the Court is plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file

a second amended complaint. Because defendants have failed to

show any prejudice, undue delay, bad faith, or futility, the

motion is GRANTED in its entirety.

“In determining whether amendments are appropriate,

courts commonly consider four factors: 1) bad faith of the

moving party, 2) delay in the proceedings, 3) prejudice to the

Case 3:09-cv-04757-BZ Document 36 Filed 04/14/10 Page 1 of 3
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

nonmoving party, and 4)futility of the amendment.” Genentech,

Inc. v. Abbot Laboratories, 127 F.R.D. 529, 530 (N.D.Cal.

1989) citing DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186

(9th Cir. 1987). “The party opposing amendment bears the

burden of showing why amendment should not be granted.” Board

of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche

Molecular Sys., Inc., 2008 WL 624771, at *6 (N.D.Cal. 2008). 

Here, none of the factors weigh in favor of denying the

motion. Though defendants have alleged bad faith, they have

neither cited authority nor submitted any evidence of bad

faith. Further, this amendment will not cause any substantial

delay in the proceedings, as the June trial date was vacated

on APRIL 5, 2010. Doc. No. 82. Defendants argue that they

are prejudiced but decline to articulate how. As fact

discovery will remain closed and the time to file dispositive

motions has been extended, I find that the amendment will not

prejudice the defendants. Finally, defendants do not argue

that the amendment is futile. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED as follows:

1. I find no need for further argument.

2. Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a second amended

complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiffs SHALL file an amended

complaint by APRIL 20, 2010. Defendants SHALL file an answer

by MAY 10, 2010. 

3. Dates:

Trial Date: Monday, MARCH 14, 2011, 8:30 a.m.

Pretrial Conference: Tuesday, FEBRUARY 22, 2011,4:00 p.m.

Last Day for Expert Discovery: JUNE 18, 2010

Case 3:09-cv-04757-BZ Document 36 Filed 04/14/10 Page 2 of 3
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

4. Dispositive Motions:

Defendants to file by June 23, 2010.

Plaintiffs to file opposition and any cross motion by

JULY 12, 2010.

Defendants to file reply and opposition to any motion

plaintiffs file by JULY 26, 2010.

Plaintiffs to file reply on their motion by AUGUST 2,

2010.

Hearing AUGUST 31, 2010, AT 1:30 P.M., in Courtroom G,

15th Floor, Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San

Francisco, California 94102.

The parties are reminded to comply with the Court’s

procedures for summary judgment motions found in the earlier

Pretrial Scheduling Order.

5. The parties SHALL notify the court if the case

settles. 

Dated: April 14, 2010 

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\FLEMING v. CLARK\ORD GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND.wpd

Case 3:09-cv-04757-BZ Document 36 Filed 04/14/10 Page 3 of 3