Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01184/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01184-10/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City Of Fresno
Defendant
Greg Occhionero
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREG OCCHIONERO, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

CITY OF FRESNO, )

)

Defendant. )

)

 )

1:05-cv-1184-LJO-SMS

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE A THIRD AMENDED

COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF

TO FILE THE THIRD AMENDED

COMPLAINT, WITH COPIES OF

EXHIBITS, NO LATER THAN TEN DAYS

AFTER THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THIS

ORDER (DOC. 49)

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO

RESPOND TO THE THIRD AMENDED

COMPLAINT NO LATER THAN TWENTY

DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF SERVICE OF

THE COMPLAINT

Plaintiff is proceeding with a civil action in this Court.

The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302(c) and 72-303. Pending

before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a third

amended complaint, filed on January 27, 2007, and supported by a

memorandum of law, a declaration of M. Jeffery Kallis, a proposed

third amended complaint, and a proposed order. Defendant filed a

notice of non-opposition on February 23, 2007, in which Defendant

Case 1:05-cv-01184-LJO -SMS Document 56 Filed 03/07/07 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

2

requested that as part of the Court’s order granting the motion,

Plaintiff be directed to file the exhibits to the third amended

complaint because they would likely be of assistance to the Court

and the parties in adjudicating an anticipated Rule 12 motion.

Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint was filed on December

23, 2005. It alleged pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that in 2002

and 2003 Defendant violated Plaintiff’s right to the equal

protection of the laws by enforcing the municipal code

differently with respect to Plaintiff than as to other similarly

situated persons and in retaliation for Plaintiff’s exercise of

his First Amendment rights. Plaintiff complained of Defendant’s

procedures in issuing notices, summarily abating a nuisance, and

enforcing a warrant in connection with code enforcement that

resulted in removal of Plaintiff’s materials from the premises of

a business and in attempts to collect over $13,000 in costs of

the Defendant’s summary abatement of a claim nuisance claims. 

By separate order, the Court has vacated the hearing on the

motion and has deemed the motion submitted to the Court for

decision on the papers.

II. Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) provides in pertinent part:

A party may amend the party’s pleading once as a

matter of course at any time before a responsive

pleading is served or, if the pleading is one to which

no responsive pleading is permitted and the action has 

not been placed upon the trial calendar, the party

may so amend it at any time within 20 days after it

is served. Otherwise a party may amend the party’s

pleading only by leave of court or by written consent

of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given

when justice so requires....

Although the rule is to be construed liberally, leave to amend is

Case 1:05-cv-01184-LJO -SMS Document 56 Filed 03/07/07 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

3

not automatically granted. Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d

1385, 1387 (9th Cir.1990). In determining whether the Court

should exercise its discretion to allow amendments, the following

factors should be considered: (1) whether the movant unduly

delayed seeking leave to amend, or acted in bad faith or with

dilatory motive; (2) whether the party opposing amendment would

be unduly prejudiced by the amendment; 3) whether there have been

repeated failures to cure, and (4) whether amendment would be

futile. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 230

(1962).

Plaintiff seeks to add a claim for violation of the Fifth

and Fourteenth Amendment due process clause because of a lack of

a pre-deprivation or post-deprivation hearing, and of the Fifth

Amendment takings clause due to a taking of his property for

public use without compensation and without a clear and imminent

danger. Plaintiff also seeks to change the amount of damages

sought in the prayer for relief from $500,000 to $700,000.

The scheduling order of January 17, 2007, reflects that

discovery does not close until July 2007, and Plaintiff’s motion

was made within the stated pleadings amendment deadline of

February 14, 2007. No prejudice is claimed by Defendant. No claim

of futility is asserted by Defendants. The newly alleged and

previously alleged claims appear to arise out of the same series

of events or transactions.

Accordingly, the Court exercises its discretion to grant

Plaintiff’s motion.

With respect to Defendant’s request that Plaintiff be

directed to attach the exhibits to the proposed third amended

Case 1:05-cv-01184-LJO -SMS Document 56 Filed 03/07/07 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

4

complaint, the Court notes that the proposed third amended

complaint refers to approximately six exhibits, consisting of

notices, requests, reports, complaints, and decisions. Local Rule

15-220 states that all changed pleadings shall contain copies of

all exhibits referred to in the changed pleading; permission may

be obtained from the Court, if desired, for the removal of any

exhibit or exhibits attached to prior pleadings in order that the

same may be attached to the changed pleading.

In this instance, Plaintiff has not requested any assistance

in connection with exhibits. In accordance with the requirements

of the local rule, the Court will direct Plaintiff to comply with

Local Rule 15-220 and to file copies of all exhibits referred to

in the third amended complaint that will be filed pursuant to

this order.

Therefore, it IS ORDERED that

1) Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a third amended

complaint IS GRANTED; and

2) Plaintiff IS DIRECTED TO FILE AND SERVE no later than ten

days after the date of service of this order the third amended

complaint, including all exhibits referred to in the third

amended complaint; and

3) Defendants SHALL RESPOND to the third amended complaint

no later than twenty days after the date of service of the third

amended complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 5, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01184-LJO -SMS Document 56 Filed 03/07/07 Page 4 of 4