N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
SPR AW LDEF, a

public be ne fit c orporation; e t a l.,

Pe t i tione rs-Appe lla

nts,
v. C ITY OF R IC HM OND, a C a lifornia m unic ipa lity ; e t a l.,

R e sponde nts-Appe lle e s. No. 20-17503 D.C . No. 4:18-c v-03918-YGR
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Yvonne Gonz a le z R oge rs, Distric t Judge , Pre siding

Subm itte d

M ay 11, 2022 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER , W . FLETC HER , a nd FOR R EST, C irc uit Judge s. Appe lla nts SPR AW LDEF, C itiz e ns for Ea st Shore Parks, a nd four individuals a

ppe a l from

the distric t c ourt’ s de n ia l of le ave to a m e n d the i r ope ra tive 

# F IL ED
MAY12 2022 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).c om

pla i nt, a nd from t he distric t c ourt’ s gra

nt of judgm e nt on theple a dings to
a ppe lle e s C ity

of R ic h m ond, Ric hm ond C ity C ounc il, Guidiville

R anc he ria

of C a lifornia , Upstre am Point M olate , LLC , a nd R i c hm ond’ s m ay o r. As the pa rtie s
are fam ilia

r with the fa c ts, we do not re c ount the m he re . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a n d we a ffirm
.

“ W e re vie w de novo thedistric t c o urt’ s ruling on a m otion for judgme nt on the p le a dings unde r Fe d e ra l R ule of C ivil Proc e dure 12(c ).” Dae w oo Ele cs. Am. Inc
. v . Opta C

orp. , 875 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th C ir. 2017) (c i ting Ly o n v . C haseBank USA, N .A. , 656 F.3d 877, 883 (9th C ir. 2011)). “ Dism issa l unde r R ule 12(c ) is
warran te d whe n, ta

k ing the a lle gations in the c om pla int a s true , the m oving pa rty is
e ntitle d to judgm e n t a s a

m a tte r of la

w.” Id. The distric t c ourt did not err in gra n ting judgme n t on the ple a dings. “ To sta te a c a use of a c t i on, a

c om pla int ba se d on [the B rown Ac t ] m u st a lle ge . . . [tha

t] the l e gisla

tive body did not c ure or c orre c t the c ha lle nge d a c tion.” Be ll v . Vista Unifie d Sc h. Dist. , 98 C a l. R ptr. 2d 263, 271 (C t . App. 2000) (quoting Boy lev . C ity of Re dondo Be ac h , 83 C a l. R ptr. 2d 164, 168 (C t. App. 1999)). “ [I] f the c ourt de te rm i ne s the a lle ge d B rown Ac t viola t ion ha s be e n c ure d or c o rre c t e d by the le gisla tive body , the a c tion file d . . . sha ll be dism isse d with pre judic e .” Id. In Nove m be r 2019, Ri c hm o nd C ity C ounc il a

pprove d the am e nde d

se ttle m e nt of the
2unde rly ing Guidiv ille Ranc h e ria of C

alifornia v. Unite d

State s litiga tion in a n
a ge ndiz e d, ope n m e e t ing a fte r public he aring. B e c a use R ic hm o nd C ity

C ounc il ha s c ure d a

ny a l le ge d B rown Ac t viola

tion, the distric t c ourt did not err in gra nting judgm e nt on the ple a dings. Appe lla nts a rgue tha t the ir first a

m e n de d pe tition (“ FAP” ), sty le d a s a

“ pe tition”ra the r tha

n a “ c om pla int” be c a

use the c a se ha d be e n

re m ove d from

sta te
c ourt, a lle ge d

viola t ions of C a lifornia

la nd use and pla

nning la w. W e disa gre e . “ A ple a ding tha

t sta te s a c la i m for re lie f m

u s t c onta in . . . a

short a nd pla in sta

te m e nt of the c la im

showing tha

t the ple a de r is e ntitle d to re lie f; a nd a de m and for the
re lie f sought, whic h

m ay inc lude re lie f in the a lte rnative or diffe re nt ty p e s of
re lie f.” Fe d. R . C i v. P. 8. The FAP a lle ge d one c a u se of a c tion unde r the B rown Ac t. It pra

y e d for four form s of re lie f, a l l ba se d on a ppe lle e s ’ a lle ge d viola

tion of the B rown Ac t. The FAP thus did not a lle ge viola

tions of C a lifornia

la nd use and pla nning la w. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in de ny ing le ave to a m e nd.

“ The tria l c ourt’ s de nia l of le a ve to a m e n d a c om p la int is re vie we d

for an a buse of disc re tion.” U

nite d State

s v . C orinthian C

olls. , 655 F.3d 984, 995 (9th C ir. 2011) (c iting J ohnson v . Buc k

le y , 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th C ir. 2004)). “ The c ourt
c onside rs five fa c tors in a s se ssing theproprie t y of le a v e to a m e nd— ba d fa ith,
3undue de la

y , pre judic e to the opposing pa rty , futility of am e ndm e nt, a n d whe the r the p la intiff ha s pre v iously am e nde d the c o m

pla int.” Id. Appe lla

nts file d the FAP in Oc tobe r 2018 in thedistric t c ourt. The y did not move for le ave to a m e nd until Se pte m be r 2020. The distric t c ourt found tha t a m e ndm e n t two y e ars a fte r the filing of theFAP would c a u se undue de la

y an d pre judic e . The distric t c ourt thus did not a buse its disc re tion in de ny ing le ave to a m e nd. Appe lla nts’ m o t ions to ta

ke judic ia l notic e (Dkt. No. 37) a nd to strike doc um e nts from

the supple m e nta l e xc e rpts of re c ord (Dkt. No. 36) a nd a ppe lle e s’ joint m otion to ta

ke judic ia l notic e (Dkt. No. 44) a re DENIED a s m oot. AFFIRM E D.

4