Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01412/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01412-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

i

t/

1

2 Ft LSD

17 MAR-I PM 2* 11

IRiMSMI

(HU s®w»

3

4

5 m

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 THE ESTATE OF RUBEN, et al., Case No.: 3:16-cv-1412-BEN-MDD

12 Plaintiffs,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ EX

PARTE MOTION TO AMEND

COMPLAINT

13 v.

14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,

15 Defendants.

16

17 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,

18 Cross Claimants,

19 v.

20 CORRECTIONAL PHYSICIANS

MEDIAL GROUP, INC., et al., 21

■Cross Defendants. 22

On February 14, 2017, Plaintiffs timely1 filed an Ex Parte Motion to Amend

Complaint. (Docket No. 58.) For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs’ Motion is DENIED.

23

24

25

26

Pursuant to the Court’s February 7, 2017 Order, which granted in part the parties’

request to continue the scheduling order, Plaintiffs had until February 14, 2017 to file a

motion to amend their complaint. (Docket No. 56.)

i

27

28

l

3:16-cv-1412-BEN-MDD

Case 3:16-cv-01412-BEN-MDD Document 72 Filed 03/01/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
It' *v

Before trial, and after the time has elapsed for which a party may amend its

pleading as a matter of course, Rule 15(a)(2) ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure

provides that: “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). Leave to amend under Rule 15(a)(2)

should be “freely give[n]... when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

Courts consider “undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure

deficiencies by previous amendments, undue prejudice to the opposing party, and futility

ofthe proposed amendment” in deciding whetherjustice requires granting leave to amend

under Rule 15. Moore v. Kayport Package Express, Inc., 885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir.

1989) (citing Foman v. Davis, 370 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). Although each factor may

warrant consideration, “prejudice to the opposing party ... carries the greatest weight.”

Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052.

Plaintiffs’ Motion lacks any explanation as to why they should be granted leave.

Although Plaintiffs represent that “Defendants do not oppose the filing ofthe amended

complaint,” (docket no. 58 at 3), one day after it was filed, Defendants filed Oppositions

stating they opposed the Motion, and that the proposed amended complaint would cause

undue prejudice or was futile. (Docket Nos. 59-60.) Additionally, as the Court noted in

its February 7, 2017 Order, this case has experienced significant delays due to the parties’

multiple requests for extensions oftime without apparent good cause. (Docket No. 56.)

In sum, Plaintiffs have not met Rule 15(a)(2)’s requirement to obtain consent to

amendment by the opposing parties, or demonstrated why justice requires the Court to

grant them leave. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend

Complaint is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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 DATED: ,2017

HON. ROQERrT. BENITEZ

United States District Judge 27

28

2

3:16-cv-1412-BEN-MDD

Case 3:16-cv-01412-BEN-MDD Document 72 Filed 03/01/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2