Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-05402/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-05402-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MICHAEL PEKIN and AMANDA

HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

COUNTY OF SAN BENITO and DOES 1

through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

 /

No. C05-05402 HRL

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

[Re: Docket No. 51]

On December 5, 2006, this court heard plaintiffs’ “Motion to Amend Complaint,” in

which they seek to add Patrick Pekin as a plaintiff and four former and current members of the

San Benito County Board of Supervisors as defendants. Defendant County of San Benito

(“County”) opposed the motion. Upon consideration of the papers filed by the parties, as well

as the arguments of counsel, plaintiffs’ motion to amend is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED

IN PART.

I. BACKGROUND

On December 29, 2005, plaintiffs Michael Pekin and Amanda Hernandez filed the

instant civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking money damages and claiming that the

County retaliated against them for exercising their claimed First Amendment right to “represent

their clients.” This court granted in part and denied in part the County’s Fed. R. Civ. P.

*E-FILED ON 12/11/06*

Case 5:05-cv-05402-HRL Document 57 Filed 12/11/06 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 The plaintiffs’ proposed amended pleading refers to this defendant variously

as “Kesler” and “Kessler.” The court has adopted the latter spelling, which is also used by

the County.

2

12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the complaint. Applying liberal federal pleading standards, the court

found that the complaint sufficiently alleged municipal liability under section 1983. 

Nevertheless, it dismissed the complaint with leave to amend because it agreed that plaintiffs do

not have a personal right under the First Amendment to simply “represent their clients.”

In their First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), plaintiffs asserted claims for retaliation for

the exercise of their First Amendment rights and for conspiracy to deprive them of their

constitutional rights under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. (A third claim for

malicious prosecution was voluntarily withdrawn). In essence, plaintiffs alleged that they were

being punished for their activities as members or supporters of Los Valientes, a citizens’ group

allegedly formed by Pekin to fight purported corruption within the County government.

This court granted in part and denied in part the County’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’

FAC. Plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim survived dismissal insofar as plaintiffs claimed a

violation of their rights to freedom of expression and association. Plaintiffs’ conspiracy claim

also survived to the extent that it was based upon the alleged deprivation of those First

Amendment rights. Nevertheless, this court dismissed plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim for

violation of their rights to access or petition. It also dismissed plaintiffs’ conspiracy claim to

the extent that it was based upon an alleged violation of their rights under the Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendments.

Plaintiffs now move for leave to file a second amended complaint which asserts a sole

claim for retaliation under the First Amendment and adds (1) Patrick Pekin (plaintiff Michael

Pekin’s son) as a plaintiff and (2) current County Supervisor Pat Loe and former County

Supervisors Richard Scagliotti, Ruth Kessler1

 and Robert Cruz as defendants. Plaintiffs seek to

add these individuals to the instant action based upon their purported role in the District

Attorney’s ongoing (and allegedly retaliatory) civil lawsuit against plaintiffs and Los Valientes. 

Insofar as the County advises that it has no objection, plaintiffs’ motion to add Patrick Pekin as

a plaintiff is granted.

Case 5:05-cv-05402-HRL Document 57 Filed 12/11/06 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

However, the County opposes plaintiffs’ motion to file an amended complaint adding

Loe, Scagliotti, Kessler and Cruz as defendants. It asserts that the allegations of plaintiffs’

proposed pleading are inconsistent in that plaintiffs apparently seek to sue these individuals in

their official capacities, but allege conduct which occurred after several individuals were no

longer in office. It also notes, in passing, that the proposed amended complaint asserts that

plaintiffs were litigants (and not just attorneys) in certain underlying state court actions – a

proposition which previously was rejected by this court on a prior motion to dismiss. In any

event, the County contends that any amendment adding these proposed defendants will be futile

because they are entitled to absolute witness immunity for testimony they provided in the

District Attorney’s civil lawsuit against plaintiffs. Additionally, the County asserts that

plaintiffs have not explained why these individuals are necessary and further argues that

plaintiffs unduly delayed in seeking the requested amendment.

II. DISCUSSION

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern motions for leave to amend and provide

that “leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.” FED.R.CIV.P. 15(a). The decision

whether to grant leave to amend under Rule 15(a) is committed to the sound discretion of the

trial court. See Waits v. Weller, 653 F.2d 1288, 1290 (9th Cir. 1981). Leave need not be

granted, however, where the amendment would cause the opposing party undue prejudice, is

sought in bad faith, constitutes an exercise in futility, or creates undue delay. Foman v. Davis,

371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). “[A] district court’s discretion over amendments is especially broad

‘where the court has already given a plaintiff one or more opportunities to amend his 

complaint . . ..’” DCD Programs Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 n.3 (9th Cir. 1987)

(quoting Mir v. Fosburg, 646 F.2d 342, 347 (9th Cir. 1980)).

In this case, an amendment adding Loe, Scagliotti, Kessler and Cruz is not warranted. 

As noted above, the instant action was filed nearly one year ago in December 2005. Plaintiffs

have already been given leave to amend their complaint once; and, they have offered no cogent

explanation why they waited until now to pursue the requested amendment. They seek to add

these four individuals on the apparent theory that they were co-retaliators with the County. 

Case 5:05-cv-05402-HRL Document 57 Filed 12/11/06 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Nothing in the record presented, however, indicates that the proposed Second Amended

Complaint (“Proposed SAC’) relies upon facts which were previously unavailable or unknown

to plaintiffs. Here, the Proposed SAC alleges that Loe, Scagliotti, Kessler and Cruz were

identified as aggrieved persons in the District Attorney’s civil complaint filed against plaintiffs

on December 17, 2004 and that they filed declarations in that lawsuit between December 2005

and March 2006. (See SAC at ¶ 27). Although plaintiffs’ counsel avers that he only recently

learned of these “new” facts, he acknowledged at the oral argument that plaintiffs were well

aware of them long before now.

Moreover, plaintiffs apparently do not contend that the would-be defendants are

necessary to this lawsuit in order to obtain complete relief. Instead, it appears that the instant

motion was precipitated by the fact that this court recently granted the County’s motion for a

continuance of the case management deadlines, including trial – an extension which, it bears

noting, was vehemently opposed by plaintiffs. Indeed, at oral argument, plaintiffs’ counsel

indicated that plaintiffs seek to add these four individuals now simply because the additional

block of time opened up in these proceedings and their “cost-benefit” analysis concluded that

the four would-be defendants should be added since the parties would be litigating the matter

for a longer period of time anyway. To the contrary, the court finds that adding four new

defendants now will unnecessarily increase the complexity of this proceeding, will possibly

provoke new and lengthy pleading battles, and increase the parties’ expenses.

Plaintiffs nevertheless maintain that an amendment is warranted because the would-be

defendants’ alleged participation in the District Attorney’s civil lawsuit is evidence of the

claimed retaliation against them. Here, they acknowledge that the “evidence” cited in the

Proposed SAC consists of the testimony that each of these individuals apparently provided in

connection with that underlying action. Yet, plaintiffs do not dispute that these individuals also

enjoy immunity from any liability for testimony they provided in the District Attorney’s civil

suit. Indeed, a witness is absolutely immune from liability for his testimony in earlier state or

federal court proceedings. See Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 329-46 (1983) (immunity

accorded to a police officer who testified as a witness at trial); Burns v. County of King, 883

Case 5:05-cv-05402-HRL Document 57 Filed 12/11/06 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

F.2d 819 (9th Cir. 1989) (immunity applied to a social worker who prepared an affidavit for use

at a bail revocation proceeding); Holt v. Castaneda, 832 F.2d 123, 127 (9th Cir. 1987)

(immunity applied to a police officer who testified as a witness at probable cause hearing), cert.

denied, 485 U.S. 979 (1988). This court remains unpersuaded that the requested amendment is

warranted.

III. ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a

second amended complaint is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion to

add Patrick Pekin as a plaintiff is GRANTED. The motion to add Pat Loe, Richard Scagliotti,

Ruth Kessler and Robert Cruz as defendants is DENIED. Plaintiffs shall file their amended

pleading forthwith in accordance with this order.

Dated:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

December 11, 2006

Case 5:05-cv-05402-HRL Document 57 Filed 12/11/06 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

6

5:05-cv-5402 Notice will be electronically mailed to: 

William L Marder bill@polarislawgroup.com 

Michael C. Serverian mserverian@rllss.com, 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have

not registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

Case 5:05-cv-05402-HRL Document 57 Filed 12/11/06 Page 6 of 6