Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02415/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02415-1/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

RICHARD A. CANATELLA,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

JOHN VAN DE KAMP, ESQ., et

al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C05-2415 BZ

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION 

FOR ORDER GRANTING 

LEAVE TO FILE SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Now before me is plaintiff’s administrative motion for an

order granting leave to file a seconded amended complaint. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 provides that leave to

amend “shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Under

Rule 15, the grant or denial of the opportunity to amend is

within the discretion of the court. See Forman v. Davis, 371

U.S. 178, 182 (1962). “Rule 15’s policy of favoring

amendments to pleadings should be applied with extreme

liberality.” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183,

186 (9th Cir. 1987) (citations and internal quotation marks

omitted). Leave to amend should be granted unless amendment

would cause prejudice, is sought in bad faith, is futile, or

Case 3:05-cv-02415-BZ Document 32 Filed 08/17/05 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

would create undue delay. See Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752,

757 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing DCD Programs, Ltd., 833 F.2d at

186) “As this circuit and others have held, it is the

consideration of prejudice to the other party that carries the

greatest weight.” Eminence Capital LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316

F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). In exercising its

discretion, “a court must be guided by the underlying purpose

of Rule 15 – to facilitate decision on the merits rather than

on the pleadings or technicalities.” DCD Programs, Ltd., 833

F.2d at 186.

Having considered plaintiff’s motion, the State Bar

defendants’ opposition, and plaintiff’s reply, I find that

allowing amendment is appropriate. Defendants have not

demonstrated that the amendment is sought in bad faith, is

futile, or would otherwise cause undue delay. This case was

only recently filed, and although defendants have filed

motions to dismiss, requiring them to submit supplemental

papers to address the allegations raised in the second amended

complaint would cause minimal prejudice. In light of the

liberal federal policy favoring decisions on the merits, I

find that amendment is appropriate and should be granted. IT

IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s second amended complaint

is deemed filed, and the September 7, 2005 hearing on

plaintiff’s administrative motion is vacated.

As the determination of plaintiff’s motion for a

preliminary injunction and defendants’ motions to dismiss will

require consideration of the allegations in the second amended

complaint, the motions are continued as follows: Defendants’

Case 3:05-cv-02415-BZ Document 32 Filed 08/17/05 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

motions to dismiss and plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary

injunction, currently scheduled to be heard on September 7,

2005, are continued to Wednesday, October 12, 2005, at 10:00

a.m., in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, Federal Building, 450 Golden

Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102. Any

supplemental papers in support of the motions must be filed by

August 31, 2005. Any oppositions must be filed by September

14, 2005. Any replies must be filed by September 21, 2005. 

The parties are free to refer to or incorporate portions of

any existing filings.

Dated: August 16, 2005

Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\CANATELLA\SCHEDULING.ORD2.wpd

Case 3:05-cv-02415-BZ Document 32 Filed 08/17/05 Page 3 of 3