Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01071/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01071-6/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 - 07cv1071 WQH (WMc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVE KASSAB,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07cv1071 WQH (WMc)

ORDER

vs.

SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT,

et al.,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

On June 12, 2007, Plaintiff Steve Kassab filed a Complaint (Doc. # 1) against the San

Diego Police Department, the City of San Diego, the City Attorney’s Office, several individual

officers, and Does 1 through 100. (Doc. # 1). 

On January 24, 2008, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint

(Doc. # 37). In the Motion to Amend, Plaintiff states that “the ‘events’ that have transpired

on November 16, 2007, at approximately 12:00, on December 19, 2007, at approximately

12:45, and on January 15, 2007, at approximately 1:30 p.m. is Supplemental pleadings which

may introduce new causes of action not alleged in the original complaint.” Mot. to Amend, p.

3. Plaintiff states that “the present motion . . . seeks leave to amend the complaint to seek

disclosure and to include does 1-100.” Id. at 2. 

Defendants have not filed an opposition to the Motion to Amend.

Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that leave to amend “be freely

given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). This policy is applied with

Case 3:07-cv-01071-BAS-JLB Document 47 Filed 04/15/08 Page 1 of 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

- 2 - 07cv1071 WQH (WMc)

“extraordinary liberality.” Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079

(9th Cir. 1990). Once an answer to the complaint has been filed, as is the case here, courts

may deny leave to amend where the proposed amendment would be futile, where it is sought

in bad faith, where it will create undue delay, or where “undue prejudice to the opposing party

will result.” Howey v. United States, 481 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1973); see also Johnson

v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992); Saul v. United States, 928

F.2d 829, 843 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Having reviewed the Motion and the supporting documents, and having received no

opposition from Defendants, the Court GRANTS the Motion for Leave to File an Amended

Complaint (Doc. # 37) filed by Plaintiff Steve Kassab. Plaintiff shall file a First Amended

Complaint no later than June 2, 2008. 

DATED: April 15, 2008

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01071-BAS-JLB Document 47 Filed 04/15/08 Page 2 of 2