Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-04529/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-04529-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
California Department of Social Services
Defendant
Elizabeth Tuckwell
Plaintiff

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELIZABETH TUCKWELL,

Plaintiff, No. C 14-4529 PJH

v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

SOCIAL SERVICES,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

Before the court is the motion of plaintiff Elizabeth Tuckwell for leave to file a first

amended complaint. Having read the parties' papers and carefully considered their

arguments and the relevant legal authority, the court hereby GRANTS the motion. 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 requires that a plaintiff obtain consent of the

defendant or leave of court to amend the complaint once the defendant has answered, but

“leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a); see also, e.g.,

Chodos v. West Pub. Co., 292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002) (leave to amend granted with

“extreme liberality”). Leave to amend is thus ordinarily granted unless the amendment is

futile, would cause undue prejudice to the defendants, or is being sought by plaintiffs in bad

faith or with a dilatory motive. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Eminence

Capital LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003). 

In the present action, plaintiff alleges employment discrimination and retaliation

under both federal and state law. She seeks leave to amend the complaint to eliminate the

federal statutory causes of action. She asserts that there has been no undue delay in

seeking leave to amend; that there is no evidence of bad faith or dilatory motive, and no

Case 4:14-cv-04529-PJH Document 32 Filed 04/28/15 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

history of repeated failure to cure the deficiencies of the complaint by amendments

previously allowed; that defendant will not be prejudiced if the motion is granted; and that

there is no indication that the amendment would be futile. 

Defendant opposes the motion, and focuses most of its attention on the factor of

"undue delay." The Ninth Circuit does not afford equal weight to the Foman factors. For

example, "delay alone no matter how lengthy is an insufficient ground for denial of leave to

amend.” U.S. v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981). On the other hand, the most

important factor is whether amendment would prejudice the opposing party. Eminence,

316 F.3d at 1052. “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." 

Id.

The court finds that the motion must be GRANTED. Defendant has not shown that it

will suffer any prejudice because of the proposed amendment, or that plaintiff unduly

delayed in seeking leave to amend. The case is still in a relatively early stage. Defendant

removed the case from Alameda County Superior Court on October 9, 2014. On January

28, 2015, prior to the initial case management conference, plaintiff filed the present motion. 

At the CMC, she indicated her intent to also seek remand of the case. The briefing of the

motion was continued to allow the parties to participate in a settlement conference, which

went forward on April 20, 2015. The motion for leave to amend was fully briefed as of April

22, 2015.

Nor has defendant made a strong showing of any of the other Foman factors. 

Defendant suggests that plaintiff has acted in bad faith, because she is simultaneously

pursuing an appeal of a State Personnel Board ruling regarding her challenge to her

termination; and also suggests that bad faith is shown by the fact that plaintiff seeks to

dismiss the federal statutory causes of action in order to seek remand of the case to the

Alameda Superior Court, where it was originally filed. However, the court is not persuaded

that plaintiffs' actions constitute bad faith under the circumstances presented here.

Defendant also speculates that plaintiff is "judge shopping," and asserts that, as an

Case 4:14-cv-04529-PJH Document 32 Filed 04/28/15 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

attorney with many years' experience, plaintiff should have known that the remedies

afforded under federal law are nearly identical to those afforded under state law, and thus

should never have alleged claims under federal law. However, as the "master of the

complaint," plaintiff was within her rights to make the decision to dismiss the federal causes

of action. 

In accordance with the foregoing, the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file the first

amended complaint no later than April 30, 2015. The date for the hearing, previously

noticed for May 6, 2015, is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 28, 2015 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:14-cv-04529-PJH Document 32 Filed 04/28/15 Page 3 of 3