UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 12, 2013
MILLER ET AL.
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable R. Gary Klausner, United States District Judge
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Present: The Honorable R. GARY KLAUSNER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
S. Williams (Not Present) Not Reported N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) Order Re: Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint (DE 22) & Remand Order FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On September 24, 2012, Craig Miller, MZA Events, Inc., Lisa Brisse, and Paloma Bennett ("Plaintiffs") filed a Complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court against the City of Santa Monica ("Defendant"). Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges violation of their rights to Free Speech and Equal Protection under both the California and U.S. Constitutions. On October 3, 2012, Defendant removed the case to this Court.
Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint. For the following reasons the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion. Also, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' remaining claim for violation of the California Constitution, and REMANDS the case to the Los Angeles Superior Court.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) ("Rule 15(a)"), "[a] party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within: (A) 21 days after serving it, or (B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(b), "[i]n all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b). The Ninth Circuit has applied this policy with "extreme liberality." United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1982). Four factors are commonly used to determine the propriety of a motion for leave to amend. These are (1) undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment; (2) undue delay; (3) bad faith or dilatory motive; and (4) futility of amendment. Id.
A. Plaintiffs' Request for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint
Plaintiffs request leave to amend their Complaint to allege additional facts and to withdraw their claims for violation of the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiffs' Motion is unopposed. The last day to motion the Court to amend the pleadings is April 15, 2013.
Plaintiffs have diligently sought leave to amend their Complaint in good faith. Further, there is no evidence suggesting that Defendant will be prejudiced by the amendment. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint.
B. This Action is Remanded
In the First Amended Complaint, the only remaining claims are for violations of the California Constitution. Because Plaintiffs have withdrawn all claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims. Accordingly, this action is REMANDED to state court.
In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint. The Court also REMANDS this case to the Los Angeles Superior Court for all further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.