Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01267/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01267-2/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 - 09cv1267-IEG (CAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROCKY MEL CONTRERAS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09-CV-1267 - IEG (CAB)

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND

[Doc. No. 36]; and

(2) DENYING AS MOOT MOTION

TO DISMISS AND IN THE

ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT [Doc. Nos. 32, 33].

vs.

OMAR VAZQUEZ; and USCG SECTOR

SAN DIEGO,

Defendants.

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s document, received on January 28, 2010, which has

a proposed Second Amended Complaint attached as an exhibit. [Doc. No. 36]. The Court construes

the document as Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file second amend complaint. For the reasons set forth

below, the Court GRANTS leave to amend and accordingly DENIES AS MOOT Defendant’s

pending Motion to Dismiss and in the Alternative for Summary Judgment.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff initially commenced this action on June 10, 2009, alleging Defendants Omar Vazquez

(acting in both his individual and official capacities) and the U.S. Coast Guard, Sector San Diego,

violated his due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. [Doc. No. 1]. On September 21, 2009,

after the Court sua sponte dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against the U.S. Coast Guard and Omar

Case 3:09-cv-01267-IEG-CAB Document 37 Filed 02/02/10 Page 1 of 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

- 2 - 09cv1267-IEG (CAB)

Vazquez in his official capacity, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint. [Doc. No. 8]. On

October 7, 2009, the Court found Plaintiff’s amended complaint again failed to assert any basis upon

which the Court could exercise subject matter jurisdiction over the claims against the U.S. Coast

Guard and Omar Vazquez in his official capacity. [Doc. No. 10]. Accordingly, the Court dismissed

Plaintiff’s claims against those Defendants with prejudice and ordered service of Plaintiff’s First

Amended Complaint upon Defendant Vazquez in his individual capacity. [Id.]

Subsequently, Plaintiff made additional attempts to amend his complaint while still in the

process of serving Defendant Vazquez. On December 2, 2009, the Court denied without prejudice

Plaintiff’s motion to amend, indicating that Plaintiff may renew his motion as long as he attaches his

proposed second amended complaint as an exhibit. [Doc. No. 18]. On December 29, 2009, the Court

again denied Plaintiff’s motion to amend, and directed Plaintiff not to file any additional motions to

amend until such time as service of the First Amended Complaint on Defendant Vazquez has been

completed. [Doc. No. 25]. On January 12, 2010, the summons for Defendant Vazquez were returned

executed, indicating that Defendant was served on January 7, 2010. [Doc. No. 31]. On January 14,

2010, Vazquez filed a Motion to Dismiss and in the Alternative for Summary Judgment, which the

Court scheduled to be heard on March 1, 2010 at 10:30 a.m. [Doc. Nos. 32, 33]. On January 28, 2010,

Plaintiff filed the present document–which the Court now construes as a motion to amend–with a

proposed Second Amended Complaint attached as an exhibit. [Doc. No. 36].

LEGAL STANDARD

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) allows a party to amend its pleading with leave of court after the period

for amendment as a matter of course has expired. See FED.R.CIV.P. 15(a)(2). Pursuant to Rule 15(a),

“[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Id. The Ninth Circuit has construed

this broadly, requiring that leave to amend be granted with “extreme liberality.” Morongo Band of

Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted); Poling v. Morgan,

829 F.2d 882, 886 (9th Cir. 1987) (noting “the strong policy permitting amendment” (citation

omitted)). This broad discretion “must be guided by the underlying purpose of Rule 15 to facilitate

decision on the merits, rather than on the pleadings or technicalities.” United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d

977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47-48 (1957)).

Case 3:09-cv-01267-IEG-CAB Document 37 Filed 02/02/10 Page 2 of 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

- 3 - 09cv1267-IEG (CAB)

The Supreme Court has articulated five factors that the court should consider in deciding

whether to grant leave to amend: (1) bad faith; (2) undue delay; (3) prejudice to the opposing party;

(4) futility of amendment; and (5) whether the party has previously amended its pleadings. Forman

v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); see also Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048,

1051-52 (9th Cir. 2003). Not all factors merit equal weight, however. Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at

1052. “Prejudice is the ‘touchstone of the inquiry under rule 15(a)’” and “carries the greatest weight.”

Id. (citations omitted). Nevertheless, “[f]utility of amendment can, by itself, justify the denial of a

motion for leave to amend.” Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995).

DISCUSSION

No prejudice will result in allowing Plaintiff to amend his complaint. In considering the

potential prejudice of the amendment, the Court considers whether the amended complaint would

“greatly change the parties’ positions in the action, and require the assertion of new defenses.” See

Phoenix Solutions, Inc. v. Sony Elec., Inc., 637 F. Supp. 2d 683, 690 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (citing

Morongo Band of Mission Indians, 893 F.2d at 1079). Notably, “where a defendant is on notice of the

facts contained in an amendment to a complaint, there is no serious prejudice to defendant in allowing

the amendment.” Sierra Club v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 813 F.2d 1480, 1493 (9th Cir. 1987), vacated

on other grounds by 485 U.S. 931 (1988). In the present case, although the amended complaint adds

two more causes of action, those causes of action stem from the same operative facts as the rest of the

complaint. The addition of these claims would not require assertion of new defenses by Defendant.

Moreover, Defendant Vazquez cannot claim prejudice because he was on notice that Plaintiff

has been trying to amend his complaint since December 1, 2009. [See Doc. No. 17]. Although the

Court denied Plaintiff’s two prior attempts to amend, the Court expressly noted that Plaintiff may

renew his motion as long as he waits until Defendant Vazquez is served and as long as he attached the

proposed second amended complaint as an exhibit. [See Doc. Nos. 18, 25]. Plaintiff followed the

Court’s directions, and now seeks to amend his complaint to make it more coherent.

Finally, there is no indication that the present motion to amend was filed in bad faith, or that

it would result in undue delay. Apart from the Defendant’s motion to dismiss, which was filed only

two weeks ago, there have been no other major developments in this case.

Case 3:09-cv-01267-IEG-CAB Document 37 Filed 02/02/10 Page 3 of 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

- 4 - 09cv1267-IEG (CAB)

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court construes Plaintiff’s document as a motion to amend and

GRANTS Plaintiff leave to file second amended complaint. The Clerk of Court is directed to file

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, which is attached as Exhibit 1 to Plaintiff’s document entitled

“Table of Contents for Exhibit of 2nd Amended Complaint.” [Doc. No. 36]. In light of this, the Court

DENIES AS MOOT Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and in the Alternative for Summary Judgment.

Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that absent exceptional circumstances, no additional leave to

amend will be granted until the Court can consider the Second Amended Complaint on its merits,

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 2, 2010

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:09-cv-01267-IEG-CAB Document 37 Filed 02/02/10 Page 4 of 4