United States District Court, S.D. California
FRANK ANJO; LUIS AURELIO MARTINS ANJO; and MARIA FATIMA ANJO, Plaintiff,
CITY OF SAN DIEGO, a municipal Corporation, Defendant.
WILLIAM Q. HAYES United States District Judge
matter before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Leave
to File Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 33).
November 7, 2014, Plaintiffs commenced this action by filing
the Complaint against City of San Diego and Does One through
Ten, inclusive. (ECF No. 1). On December 9, 2014, the parties
stipulated that Plaintiffs would “file a First Amended
Complaint [(“FAC”)] deleting the Doe
defendants.” (ECF No. 4).
December 16, 2014, Plaintiffs filed the FAC naming only the
City of San Diego. (ECF No. 6). Plaintiffs allege (1)
violations of Franks Anjo’s rights under
California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act and the
California Civil Code; and (2) violation of Luis Aurelio
Martins Anjo and Maria Fatima Anjo’s civil rights under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 6).
January 6, 2015, Defendants filed the Answer. (ECF No. 7). On
May 14, 2015, the Court issued a Scheduling Order. (ECF No.
19). The Court ordered, “Any motion to join other
parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional
pleadings shall be filed by June 1, 2015.”
Id. at ¶ 1. The Court also ordered, “All
fact discovery shall be completed by all parties by July
3, 2015.” Id. at ¶ 2.
February 4, 2016, Defendant filed the Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings, or in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss. (ECF
No. 24). On May 10, 2016, the Court granted the City’s
Motion as to Plaintiffs’ third claim for relief, which
alleged violations of Plaintiffs’ civil rights under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. The Court noted that the only named
defendant was the City and that a local government could not
be held liable under § 1983. The Court stated that
Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims shall remain
23, 2016, Plaintiffs filed the Motion for Leave to File a
Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 33). On June 2, 2016,
Defendant filed an opposition. (ECF No. 34). On June 9, 2016,
Plaintiffs filed a reply. (ECF No. 35).
Rule of Civil Procedure 15 mandates that leave to amend
“be freely given when justice so requires.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). “This policy is to be applied with
extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v.
Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003)
(quotation omitted). Once a Court has entered its pretrial
order, the party seeking to modify the scheduling order must
satisfy the more stringent “good cause” showing
required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16.
Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604,
609 (9th Cir. 1992). “Unlike Rule 15(a)’s liberal
amendment policy which focuses on the bad faith of the party
seeking to interpose an amendment and the prejudice to the
opposing party, Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’
standard primarily considers the diligence of the party
seeking the amendment.” Id.
case, on May 14, 2015, the Court ordered that “[a]ny
motion to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or to
file additional pleadings shall be filed by June 1,
2015.” (ECF No. 19 at 1). The Court also ordered that
“[a]ll fact discovery shall be completed by all parties
by July 3, 2015.” Id. Plaintiffs have not
given any explanation as to why they have delayed naming the
eight individual defendants by almost one year after the June
1, 2015 deadline to file any motion to amend the pleadings
and eleven months after the close of discovery. Further, after
review of the proposed SAC, the Court finds that the proposed
SAC merely adds the names of eight individuals, but fails to
include any new facts or allegations as to what these eight
individuals allegedly did to violate their civil rights. The
Court concludes that Plaintiffs have not demonstrated good
cause as to why they have delayed in naming the eight
HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File Second
Amended Complaint (ECF No. 33) is denied. Any motion to
remand the case shall be filed by August 8, 2016. Any
responses shall be filed by ...