Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Haynes v. Hanson

United States District Court, N.D. California

April 25, 2014

GREGORY M. HAYNES, Plaintiff,
v.
CHRISTIAN HANSON, et al., Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND Re: ECF No. 101

JON S. TIGAR, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Gregory M. Haynes ("Plaintiff") has moved pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to file a second amended complaint in this action.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Factual and Procedural History

This action involves an altercation in a hallway that allegedly occurred in October 2009. Plaintiff filed the initial complaint in this Court on October 11, 2011. ECF No. 1.

On April 4, 2013, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss. ECF No. 55. The Court dismissed with prejudice all claims against the properly named San Francisco municipal government defendants (Dennis Herrera, Joanne Hoeper, and Daniel Zaheer), finding that all asserted claims were barred by res judicata. In that order, the Court pointed out that it was not considering the claims Plaintiff asserted against Defendant "Daniel Murphy, " who had not joined the motion to dismiss since he was not properly named. Id., n.1. The Court entered separate judgment against the municipal defendants, and the Court's dismissal of those claims is currently on appeal before the Ninth Circuit. ECF Nos. 57, 61 & 73.

The Court also dismissed claims against the other defendants without prejudice, and gave Plaintiff leave to file a first amended complaint ("FAC"). Plaintiff filed the FAC in May 2013. ECF No. 56. The Court denied the remaining defendants'motion to dismiss. ECF No. 85.

In November 2013, the parties filed a joint case management statement in which Plaintiff stated that he "intends to amend (or seek leave to amend) the first amended complaint." ECF No. 97.

On February 11, 2014, the Court issued a scheduling order. ECF No. 98. The Court noted that Plaintiff had failed to file any motion to amend in the intervening three months, and set February 28 as the deadline for any motions to amend the pleadings.

Plaintiff filed the instant motion to amend on February 28.

B. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 provides that courts should "freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires." Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). This "policy is to be applied with extreme liberality.'" Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc. , 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc. , 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir.2001)).

"A court must "consider (1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of amendment, and (5) whether plaintiff has previously amended his complaint.'" Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe of Lake Traverse Indian Reservation, N. Dakota & S. Dakota v. United States , 90 F.3d 351, 355 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Allen v. City of Beverly Hills , 911 F.2d 367, 373 (9th Cir. 1990)). "[C]onsideration of prejudice to the opposing party... carries the greatest weight." Eminence Capital , 316 F.3d at 1052. "Absent prejudice, or a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.