Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04256/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04256-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

Case No.: 5:16-cv-04256-EJD

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

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

RAAD ZUHAIR RABIEH,

Plaintiff,

v.

PARAGON SYSTEMS INC., dba 

PARASYS, INC., DOES 1-20,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:16-cv-04256-EJD 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

Re: Dkt. No. 66

Plaintiff Raad Zuhair Rabieh (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against Defendant Paragon 

Systems Inc. (“Paragon”) and “DOES 1-20” (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging Constitutional 

violations and various state law claims. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave 

to file a second amended complaint. Dkt. No. 66. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court 

finds this matter suitable for decision without oral argument and VACATES the hearing set for 

April 12, 2018. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1), a party “may amend its pleading once as a 

matter of course” within 21 days after that pleading is served, or 21 days after service of a 

responsive pleading or motion under Rule 12. “In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading 

only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 

Because Plaintiff has already amended his complaint once as a matter of course, see Dkt. No. 3, he 

cannot file an additionally amended complaint without leave of this Court.

“Generally, Rule 15 advises the court that ‘leave shall be freely given when justice so 

requires.’ This policy is ‘to be applied with extreme liberality.’” Eminence Capital, LLC v. 

Case 5:16-cv-04256-EJD Document 71 Filed 04/09/18 Page 1 of 3
Case No.: 5:16-cv-04256-EJD

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

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

Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, 

Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001)). In Foman v. Davis, the Supreme Court enumerated 

several factors which district courts should consider in deciding whether to grant leave to amend:

In the absence of any apparent or declared reason—such as 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, etc.—the leave 

sought should, as the rules require, be “freely given.”

371 U.S. 178, 82 S. Ct. 227, 9 L. Ed. 2d 222 (1962). Of these factors, “prejudice to the opposing 

party . . . carries the greatest weight.” Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1051. “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.” Id.

Here, Plaintiff’s proposed amendments alter the operative complaint in two ways: (1) they

add the names of “DOE 1,” “DOE 2,” “DOE 3,” and “DOE 4;” and (2) they modify Plaintiffs’ 

§ 1983 claims in the first three causes of action to allege Bivens claims in the alternative. 

Compare Dkt. No. 66-1, with Dkt. No. 3. Defendants do not appear to oppose this first category 

of changes, and only challenge the second category on a single basis: legal futility. Opposition 

(“Opp’n”), Dkt. No. 67. On that point, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s Bivens claims are legally 

futile because private corporations (such as Paragon) and private individuals (such as the Paragon 

employees named in the proposed second amended complaint) cannot be held liable under 

Bivens.

1

 Opp’n 3-4.

Defendants’ objection sweeps too broadly. Indeed, as the Ninth Circuit has recognized, 

the Supreme Court has yet to “completely foreclose applying Bivens to private actors.” Vega v. 

United States, 881 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing Minneci v. Pollard, 565 U.S. 118, 120, 

132 S. Ct. 617, 181 L. Ed. 2d 606 (2012) (“[W]e concede that we cannot prove a negative or be 

 

1 Defendants also argue that Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims are legally futile. Opp’n 4-5. However, 

because these claims are already part of the operative complaint, they are not amendments which 

the Court must consider in deciding Plaintiff’s motion for leave. If Defendants wish to challenge 

the legal sufficiency of these claims, they must do so in a properly noticed motion under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12.

Case 5:16-cv-04256-EJD Document 71 Filed 04/09/18 Page 2 of 3
Case No.: 5:16-cv-04256-EJD

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

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

totally certain that the features of state tort law relevant here will universally prove to be, or 

remain, as we have described them.”)); see also Rosenberg v. Cornell Corp., No. C 07-4690 PJH, 

2009 WL 5069141, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2009) (“Neither the Supreme Court nor the Ninth 

Circuit have answered the question regarding whether Bivens applies to employees of private 

corporations.”). Based on the allegations in the second amended complaint and the information 

available at this stage, the Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff’s Bivens claims are legally futile. 

Accordingly, amendment cannot be denied on this basis.

Defendants raise no other grounds for denying Plaintiff’s request, and the Court discerns 

none. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is 

GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file the proposed second amended complaint as a separate docket entry 

on ECF forthwith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 9, 2018

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-04256-EJD Document 71 Filed 04/09/18 Page 3 of 3