Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01409/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01409-6/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PACIFIC MARINE CENTER, INC., a )

California corporation; SONA )

VARTANIAN, an individual, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

)

SCOTT SILVA, in his individual capacity; )

TOM WILSON, in his individual capacity; )

E. ESSEGIAN, in his individual capacity; )

and DOES 1-25, inclusively, )

)

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:09 cv 1409 LJO-GSA

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTIONS TO STRIKE

THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

 ORDER VACATING HEARING SET FOR

AUGUST 6, 2010

(Documents 48 and 49)

I. Introduction

Pending before the Court are Defendants Silva, Wilson, and Essegian’s (“Defendants”)

Motions to Strike the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) that were filed on June 23 and 24,

2010. (Docs. 48 and 49). Plaintiffs, Pacific Marine and Sona Vartanian (“Plaintiffs), filed an

opposition to the motions on July 9, 2010. (Doc. 69). Replies were filed on July 12 and July 13,

2010. (Docs. 74 and 75). Based on a review of the pleadings, the Court determined that the

matter was suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). The

1

Case 1:09-cv-01409-LJO-JLT Document 83 Filed 07/30/10 Page 1 of 4
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

hearing set for July 30, 2010 at 9:30 am was vacated. Upon consideration of the pleadings,

Defendants’ Motions to Strike the SAC are GRANTED. 

II. Background

The case is proceeding on the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) filed on October 20,

2009. (Doc. 20). In the FAC, Plaintiff Sona Vartanian alleges that on August 10, 2009, law 1

enforcement officers, Scott Silva, Tom Wilson, and Edward Essegian conducted an illegal search

of her business, Pacific Marine Center. Specifically, Plaintiff Vartanian alleges that Defendant

Silva gave false information in the affidavit of support for the search warrant, that officers

searched and seized items and areas not identified in the search warrant, and the items seized

were not recorded on the property receipt. Plaintiff contends that her business was adversely

effected as a result of the search and seizure. She alleges violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based

on the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. Plaintiff contends the actions

were done with the intention of inflicting mental pain, oppression, and emotional distress. 

Plaintiffs request $10,000,000.00 in general damages against each defendant for each cause of

action; $10,000,000.00 in punitive and exemplary damages against each defendant for each cause

of action; attorney’s fees; costs; and other just relief.

On June 14, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) which adds

several new defendants employed by the Department of Motor Vehicles, as well as a defendant

employed by the City of Fresno. The SAC also includes several allegations regarding Plaintiff’s

emotional distress. 

On June 23, 2010, Defendant Essegian, filed a Motion to Strike the SAC on June 14,

2010. (Doc. 48). Similarly, on June 24, 2010, Defendants Silva and Wilson also filed a Motion

to Strike the SAC. Defendants have filed the Motions to Strike the SAC because no defendant

consented to the filing of the amended pleading and Plaintiffs did not request leave of the Court

file to amend the FAC pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. (Docs. 48 and 49). 

In opposition, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants were advised that the SAC would be filed

and neither attorney objected. Plaintiffs argue that as a result, Defendants’ attorneys gave their

The initial complaint was filed on August 11, 2009.

1

2

Case 1:09-cv-01409-LJO-JLT Document 83 Filed 07/30/10 Page 2 of 4
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

implied consent to file the amended pleading. Furthermore, Plaintiffs contend that the

Defendants and the Court were advised that an amended pleading would be filed as reflected in

the scheduling order issued on February 4, 2010, which states that Plaintiff shall forward any

proposed amended pleading to Defendants no later than July 1, 2010. (Doc. 41 at pg. 2 line 5).

III. Discussion

Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that after an amended complaint

has been filed, a party may amend the pleading again only with the opposing party’s written

consent or with the Court’s leave. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 

Here, Plaintiffs have not complied with Rule 15 as it is clear that no defendant has given

written consent, nor did Plaintiffs obtain leave of the court to file the amended pleading. The

Court is not persuaded by Plaintiffs’ arguments that Defendants gave their implied consent by

signing a stipulation to change the scheduling order dates based on the filing of the SAC. Rule

15 does not provide for a mechanism by which a party may give “implied consent.” 

Furthermore, although the scheduling order indicated that Plaintiffs needed to forward any

amended pleading to Defendants by July 1, 2010, there is nothing in that order relieving

Plaintiffs of their obligations under Rule 15 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. In this case,

it is clear that Plaintiffs have not complied with Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. Therefore, Defendants’

Motions to Strike the SAC shall be granted. 

IV. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ Motions to Strike the Second Amended Complaint

are granted. The Second Amended Complaint is STRICKEN. Plaintiffs must file a Motion for

Leave to Amend the FAC, or alternatively obtain written consent from the opposing parties to

file the SAC no later than August 10, 2010. Absent written consent to file the SAC, Plaintiffs

must obtain leave from the Court to amend the FAC. 

Notwithstanding the above, all counsel are advised that under Rule 15, Motions for Leave

to Amend the Complaint are liberally construed and the Court should freely give leave when

justice requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). In this case, Plaintiff is attempting to add new doe

defendants and expand on existing causes of action. If the parties consent to the filing of the

3

Case 1:09-cv-01409-LJO-JLT Document 83 Filed 07/30/10 Page 3 of 4
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

SAC, or leave to file the SAC is granted, the existing scheduling order will be vacated, and new

dates will be set to accommodate the newly named defendants and the expanded causes of action.

In light of this order, Defendants’ Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order filed on July 9,

2010, will be held in abeyance until it is determined whether Plaintiffs will file a SAC. (Docs. 70

and 73). Accordingly, the hearing for the Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order set for August

6, 2010 at 9:30 is VACATED. If Plaintiffs do not file a SAC, the motion will be placed back on

calendar at a later date, and any modifications to the scheduling order issued on February 4, 2010

that are granted, will be granted nunc pro tunc.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 30, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 1:09-cv-01409-LJO-JLT Document 83 Filed 07/30/10 Page 4 of 4