Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02657/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02657-1/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

---

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

FRANK ANJO; LUIS AURELIO

MARTINS ANJO; and MARIA

FATIMA ANJO,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 14cv2657-WQH-BGS

ORDER

v.

CITY OF SAN DIEGO, a municipal

Corporation,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Second

Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 33). 

Background

On November 7, 2014, Plaintiffs commenced this action by filing the Complaint

against City of San Diego and Does One through Ten, inclusive. (ECF No. 1). On

December 9, 2014, the parties stipulated that Plaintiffs would “file a First Amended

Complaint [(“FAC”)] deleting the Doe defendants.” (ECF No. 4). 

On December 16, 2014, Plaintiffs filed the FAC naming only the City of San

Diego. (ECF No. 6). Plaintiffs allege (1) violations of Franks Anjo’s rights under

California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act and the California Civil Code; and (2)

violation of Luis Aurelio Martins Anjo and Maria Fatima Anjo’s civil rights under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 6). 

On January 6, 2015, Defendants filed the Answer. (ECF No. 7). On May 14,

- 1 - 14cv2657-WQH-BGS

Case 3:14-cv-02657-WQH-BGS Document 36 Filed 08/02/16 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

2015, the Court issued a Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 19). The Court ordered, “Any

motion to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional pleadings shall

be filed by June 1, 2015.” Id. at ¶ 1. The Court also ordered, “All fact discovery shall

be completed by all parties by July 3, 2015.” Id. at ¶ 2. 

On February 4, 2016, Defendant filed the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings,

or in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 24). On May 10, 2016, the Court

granted the City’s Motion as to Plaintiffs’ third claim for relief, which alleged

violations of Plaintiffs’ civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court noted that the

only named defendant was the City and that a local government could not be held liable

under § 1983. The Court stated that Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims shall remain

pending. 

On May 23, 2016, Plaintiffs filed the Motion for Leave to File a Second

Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 33). On June 2, 2016, Defendant filed an opposition. 

(ECF No. 34). On June 9, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a reply. (ECF No. 35). 

Discussion 

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

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). Once a Court has entered its pretrial order, the party

seeking to modify the scheduling order must satisfy the more stringent “good cause”

showing required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. Johnson v. Mammoth

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). “Unlike Rule 15(a)’s liberal

amendment policy which focuses on the bad faith of the party seeking to interpose an

amendment and the prejudice to the opposing party, Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard

primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Id.

In this case, on May 14, 2015, the Court ordered that “[a]ny motion to join other

parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional pleadings shall be filed by June 1,

2015.” (ECF No. 19 at 1). The Court also ordered that “[a]ll fact discovery shall be

- 2 - 14cv2657-WQH-BGS

Case 3:14-cv-02657-WQH-BGS Document 36 Filed 08/02/16 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

completed by all parties by July 3, 2015.” Id. Plaintiffs have not given any explanation

as to why they have delayed naming the eight individual defendants by almost one year

after the June 1, 2015 deadline to file any motion to amend the pleadings and eleven

months after the close of discovery.1

 Further, after review of the proposed SAC, the

Court finds that the proposed SAC merely adds the names of eight individuals, but fails

to include any new facts or allegations as to what these eight individuals allegedly did

to violate their civil rights. The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have not demonstrated

good cause as to why they have delayed in naming the eight individual defendants. 

Conclusion

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

Complaint (ECF No. 33) is denied. Any motion to remand the case shall be filed by

August 8, 2016. Any responses shall be filed by August 15, 2016. Any reply shall be

filed by August 22, 2016. 

DATED: August 2, 2016

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

1

 Plaintiffs assert that their proposed SAC is timely based on the Court’s May 10, 2016 order, which stated that any Motion for Leave to Amend had to be filed by May 23, 2016. (ECF No. 32). That order merely set forth a schedule for Plaintiffs to file a

Motion for Leave to Amend.

- 3 - 14cv2657-WQH-BGS

Case 3:14-cv-02657-WQH-BGS Document 36 Filed 08/02/16 Page 3 of 3