Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00594/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00594-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RANDALL LAWRENCE and

MICHAEL McCONNEL,

Plaintiffs,

Civil No. 14cv594-WQH-MDD

ORDER

vs.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT

OF THE TREASURY; UNITED

STATES BUREAU OF THE MINT;

and THE UNITED STATES OF

AMERICA, 

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended

Complaint. (ECF No. 11).

BACKGROUND

On March 14, 2014, Plaintiffs Randall Lawrence and Michael McConnell

initiated this action by filing a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment (“Complaint”) in

this Court. (ECF No. 1). On July, 23, 2014, this Court submitted an Order granting

Defendants Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the Complaint failed to allege

sufficient facts to support the legal conclusions that Plaintiffs are the “owners” of the

Aluminum Cent, with a “legal right to have their coin sold at public auction,” and that

“the Government’s claim to Plaintiffs’ Aluminum Cent is invalid.” (ECF No. 10 at 5).

On August 21, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File First Amended

- 1 - 14cv594-WQH-MDD

Case 3:14-cv-00594-WQH-MDD Document 16 Filed 12/08/14 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

Complaint (ECF No. 11) which is the operative pleading. On September 8, 2014,

Defendants filed an opposition. (ECF No. 14). On September 15, 2014, Plaintiffs filed

a reply. (ECF No. 15).

CONTENTIONS OF PARTIES

Plaintiffs contend that the proposed First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) amends

the allegations found in the Complaint to allege specifically the manner in which

Plaintiffs came into possession of the Aluminum Cent, as well as the manner in which

Plaintiff Lawrence’s father, Harry Lawrence, came into possession of the coin. (ECF

No. 11 at 3). Plaintiffs contend that the FAC further amends the allegations of the

Complaint to plead the specific grounds upon which Plaintiffs allege their superior title

to the Aluminum Cent, including three statutory presumptions attaching under

California state law. (ECF No. 11 at 3-4). Plaintiffs further contend that the proposed

FAC amends the allegations of the Complaint to include information of the sale at

public auction, subsequent to the filing of the original Complaint, of experimental 1921

and 1922 U.S. Peace Dollars created for and kept by then-U.S. Mint Director Raymond

T. Baker. (ECF No. 11 at 4).

Defendants contend that leave to amend would be futile because the proposed

amended complaint suffers from the same deficiencies described by the Court in its

order dismissing the Complaint for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(6). (ECF No. 14 at 6.). Defendants contend that Plaintiffs have not asserted –

and cannot assert – any facts that would support any scenario under which they could

plausibly be in lawful possession of the subject piece. Id. Defendants further contend

that the proposed amended complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to support its mere

legal conclusions that Plaintiffs are the “owners” of the piece, with a “legal right to have

their coin sold at public auction,” and that “the Government’s claim to Plaintiffs’

Aluminum Cent is invalid.” Id.

RULING OF COURT

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

- 2 - 14cv594-WQH-MDD

Case 3:14-cv-00594-WQH-MDD Document 16 Filed 12/08/14 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

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

extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th

Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted). In determining whether to allow an amendment, a court

considers whether there is “undue delay,” “bad faith,” “undue prejudice to the opposing

party,” or “futility of amendment.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). “Not

all of the [Foman] factors merit equal weight.... [I]t is the consideration of prejudice

to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight.” Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at

1052 (citation omitted). “The party opposing amendment bears the burden of showing

prejudice.” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987). 

“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.” Eminence

Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052.

After review of the motion, the proposed first amended complaint, and the filings

of the parties, the Court concludes that Defendants have not made a sufficiently strong

showing of the Foman factors to overcome the presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor

of granting leave to amend. See Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. The Court will

defer consideration of any challenge to the merits of the proposed first amended

complaint until after the amended pleading is filed. See Netbula v. Distinct Corp., 212

F.R.D. 534, 539 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (“Ordinarily, courts will defer consideration of the

challenges to the merits of a proposed amended pleading until after leave to amend is

granted and the amended pleading is filed.”). 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File First Amended

Complaint is GRANTED. (ECF No. 11). Plaintiff shall file the proposed first amended

complaint attached to the motion within ten (10) days of the date of this Order.

DATED: December 8, 2014

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - 14cv594-WQH-MDD

Case 3:14-cv-00594-WQH-MDD Document 16 Filed 12/08/14 Page 3 of 3