Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-05504/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-05504-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City College of California
Defendant
City College of San Francisco
Defendant
Carol Thomas
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CAROL THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY COLLEGE OF SAN FRANCISCO, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-05504-HSG 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

AMENDED COMPLAINT; SETTING 

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Re: Dkt. No. 33

Before the Court is Plaintiff Carol Thomas’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for leave to file a second 

amended complaint. Dkt. No. 33 (“Mot.”). Plaintiff seeks to allege additional facts about hospital 

bills she has incurred in relation to her claims, as well as communications she has had with the 

Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights, regarding her complaint and with a dean who 

apparently works for Defendants City College of San Francisco and City College of California 

(together, “Defendants”). See generally id. Defendants did not file any opposition.

Plaintiff filed this action on December 1, 2015. See Dkt. No. 1. She filed a first amended 

complaint on February 26, 2016. Dkt. No. 20. That first amended complaint, which is operative, 

asserts unspecified racial discrimination and retaliation claims against Defendants. Id. at 2-3. 

After an unsuccessful settlement conference, see Dkt. No. 32, Plaintiff filed the instant motion.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, a party may amend its pleading within 21 days 

of service or “with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Leave to amend 

“shall be freely given when justice so requires.” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist W., Inc., 

465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation and quotation marks omitted). But a district court may 

deny leave to amend where the motion is accompanied by “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory 

motive on part of the movant,” where it would cause “undue prejudice to the opposing party,” or if 

Case 4:15-cv-05504-HSG Document 35 Filed 07/14/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

amendment would be futile. Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., 629 F.3d 876, 892 (9th Cir. 2010).

Because Defendants have not opposed this motion and because there is no indication that 

Plaintiff seeks to amend her complaint for an improper purpose, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s 

motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. Additionally, the Court SETS a further case 

management conference for August 2, 2016, at 2:00pm to discuss setting a schedule in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

7/14/2016

Case 4:15-cv-05504-HSG Document 35 Filed 07/14/16 Page 2 of 2