Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-03494/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-03494-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MICHAEL E BOYD,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

TREASURY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-03494-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

On August 15, 2016, this Court granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss all claims with 

leave to amend. ECF 76. The Court ordered Plaintiff to amend his complaint by September 16, 

2016. Id. The Court indicated that no new causes of action or parties may be added without leave 

except that Plaintiff may substitute the United States in place of the Department of Treasury and 

Jack Lew as a defendant assuming that there are sufficient facts to support a valid claim. Id. On 

August 26, 2016, the Court granted parties’ stipulation to extend the deadline for filing an 

amended complaint to October 3, 2016 and to extend the deadline for any responsive pleading to 

October 31, 2016. ECF 79.

On October 3, 2016, Plaintiff moved this Court for leave to file an amended complaint, and 

attached a proposed amended complaint to his motion. ECF 81. In the proposed amended 

complaint, Plaintiff has substituted United States as defendant for Department of Treasury and Mr. 

Lew and amended certain factual allegations of the complaint. ECF 81-1. Moreover, Plaintiff has 

added “Quiet Title” as a new cause of action. Id. Defendant Attorney General Kamala Harris 

does not oppose the motion for leave but reserves the right to challenge the complaint once it is 

served. ECF 83. Defendant Governor Edmund Brown and Defendant Michael Cohen oppose the 

motion on the ground that the amendment is futile and does not cure the deficiencies of the prior 

complaint. ECF 85. Defendant Betty Yee also opposes the motion and contends that the 

amendment does not adequately allege any cause of action, including the “Quiet Title” claim. 

Case 5:15-cv-03494-BLF Document 90 Filed 10/24/16 Page 1 of 4
2

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

ECF 86. Like other Defendants, United States also filed an opposition, claiming that the 

amendment would be futile. ECF 84. Separately from their motion to dismiss, Defendants Brown 

and Cohen also filed an ex parte application asking the Court to set their motion to dismiss hearing 

on January, 26, 2017, the date Plaintiff’s motion for leave is supposed to be heard. ECF 88.

The Court first considers Plaintiff’s substitution of Department of Treasury and Mr. Lew 

with United States as a defendant and the various new factual allegations supporting claims of 

gross negligence, willful misconduct, fifth amendment retaliation, fourteenth amendment equal 

protection violation, and 42 U.S.C. section 1983 violation. On the face, the substitution with a 

new defendant and the factual allegations appear to be within the scope of amendment allowed by 

the Court’s prior order granting the motions to dismiss. The Court acknowledges that Defendants 

opposing the motion have argued that the amended claims remain deficient. However, the Court 

at this time does not analyze whether the claims are adequately pled and finds the issues more 

suited for a future motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion for leave as to 

the substitution of the United States as a defendant and to the various factual allegations.

The Court next turns to whether to grant Plaintiff leave to add “Quiet Title” as a new cause 

of action. Deciding whether to grant leave to amend is “within the discretion of the District 

Court.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Generally, “‘leave shall be freely given when 

justice so requires.’” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 

2003). The Court considers the following factors in deciding whether to grant leave to amend: 

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. Id. at 1052 (quoting Foman, 371 U.S. at

182). “[C]onsideration of prejudice to the opposing party . . . carries the greatest weight.” 

Eminence, 316 F.3d at 1052. 

The Court first considers any undue prejudice to Defendants, as that “carries the greatest 

weight.” Id. While responding to pleadings is the burden of every defendant, this amendment is 

only the first amendment in this case. Given that the case is still at the pleading stage, and no 

discovery cut-off and trial dates have been set, allowing further amendment would not unduly 

Case 5:15-cv-03494-BLF Document 90 Filed 10/24/16 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

prejudice Defendants. The Court also notes that none of the defendants opposing this motion 

argue that they would suffer undue prejudice. Accordingly, the Court finds that there would not 

be undue prejudice if the motion were to be granted.

As for undue delay, this factor weighs in favor of granting leave. Plaintiff and Defendants 

stipulated to a deadline for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint and Plaintiff then timely filed 

this motion by the deadline. As such, the Court finds, and Defendants do not dispute in their 

oppositions, that there is no undue delay.

Similarly, the Court finds no bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of Plaintiff in moving 

for leave to amend. The Court had already granted leave to amend in its prior order with specific 

instructions and Plaintiff then filed this motion for leave to amend on the deadline agreed upon by 

all parties. Plaintiff appears to have complied with this Court’s order and the parties’ stipulation. 

Nothing suggests that Plaintiff acted in bad faith.

The next factor – as to whether there have been repeated failures to cure deficiencies by 

amendments previously allowed – does not apply here. As noted above, this is Plaintiff’s first 

amendment in the case so there have not been repeated failures to cure the deficiencies.

Turning to the last factor – futility of the amendment, the Court finds it premature to 

determine at this juncture whether the “Quiet Title” cause of action would be futile. California 

Code of Civil Procedure section 761.020 requires plaintiffs bringing quiet title claims to show, 

inter alia, the adverse claims to the plaintiffs’ title, and that they “are the rightful owners of the 

property, i.e., that they have satisfied their obligations under the Deed of Trust.” Kelley v. 

Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., 642 F.Supp.2d 1048, 1057 (N.D. Cal. 2009). The Court is 

uncertain whether this cause of action has been adequately pled but refrains from analyzing the 

sufficiency of the pleading on this motion for leave to amend.

Although the factor pertaining to futility of the amendment may weigh slightly against this 

motion, all other Foman factors weight in favor of granting Plaintiff’s leave to amend the

complaint. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend and 

VACATES the hearing on this motion for leave to amend currently scheduled on January 26, 

2017. The Court further directs Plaintiff to file his amended complaint, as well as any exhibits, on 

Case 5:15-cv-03494-BLF Document 90 Filed 10/24/16 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

or before November 3, 2016. Because the hearing on this motion for leave is vacated, the Court 

GRANTS the ex parte application of Defendants Brown and Cohen, asking the Court to set their 

motion to dismiss hearing on January 26, 2017. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 24, 2016

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-03494-BLF Document 90 Filed 10/24/16 Page 4 of 4