Alejandre v. County of San Joaquin ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 CINDY M. ALEJANDRE and DAVID No. 2:19-cv-00233 WBS KJN GONZALEZ II as co-successors-in- 13 interest to Decedent David Gonzalez III, 14 ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION Plaintiffs, FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND 15 AMENDED COMPLAINT v. 16 COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, a 17 municipal corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, individually 18 and in their official capacity as Sheriff’s Deputies for the 19 San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department, 20 Defendants. 21 22 ----oo0oo---- 23 Decedent David Gonzalez III (“decedent”) was arrested 24 on June 22, 2018 and detained at the San Joaquin County Jail. 25 (First Am. Compl. (“FAC”) ¶ 4 (Docket No. 17).) He allegedly 26 complained of feeling ill, but his requests for medical 27 assistance were repeatedly denied. (Id.) On June 26, 2018, 28 1 decedent was transported to Stockton Superior Court for his 2 arraignment. (FAC ¶ 1.) He again complained of feeling ill, and 3 again his requests for medical assistance were denied. (Id.) 4 Decedent was later found unconscious and without a pulse. (FAC ¶ 5 2.) He was taken to St. Joseph’s Hospital in Stockton, 6 California, and pronounced dead. (FAC ¶ 3.) 7 Decedent’s successors in interest, Cindy M. Alejandre 8 and David Gonzalez II (collectively “plaintiffs”), brought this 9 action against the County of San Joaquin (“the County”) and 10 presently unnamed Sheriff’s Deputies seeking relief under 42 11 U.S.C. § 1983, the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, and other 12 provisions of state law. (FAC ¶¶ 37-92.) This court dismissed 13 plaintiffs’ Monell claim against the only named defendant at the 14 time, the County. (Docket No. 24.) Plaintiffs now seek leave to 15 file a second amended complaint to name the County of San Joaquin 16 as a party under a respondeat superior theory of liability on 17 plaintiffs’ state law claims. (Docket No. 25.) 18 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 mandates that leave 19 to amend “be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. 20 Civ. P. 15(a). “This policy is to be applied with extreme 21 liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 22 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations and internal quotations 23 omitted). Whether to grant or deny leave to amend is within the 24 discretion of the district court. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 25 182 (1962). When deciding whether to grant leave to amend, 26 district courts will consider (1) bad faith on the part of the 27 movant; (2) undue delay in filing the motion; (3) prejudice to 28 the opposing party; and (4) the futility of the proposed 1 amendment. Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1051-52 (quoting id.). 2 The “consideration of prejudice to the opposing party” bears most 3 heavily on a district court’s determination. Id. at 1052 (citing 4 DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 185 (9th Cir. 5 1987). “Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the 6 remaining Foman factors, there exists a presumption under Rule 7 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Id. (emphasis in 8 original). 9 At parties’ meet and confer, the County agreed to allow 10 the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to name the County under 11 a respondeat superior theory on plaintiffs’ state law claims, to 12 answer the amended complaint rather than move to dismiss the 13 claims, and to identify the presently unnamed Sheriff’s Deputies 14 plaintiffs seek to add as individual defendants. (Mot. to Amend 15 at 3-4 (Docket No. 25).) This agreement, coupled with the fact 16 that the County has not yet answered plaintiffs’ first amended 17 complaint, dispels any concern about prejudice to defendants. 18 The plaintiffs filed this present motion without undue delay 19 following this court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ Monell claim, 20 and an amended complaint would allow the parties to proceed 21 against named parties instead of proceeding against a number of 22 unnamed individuals. The court finds the lack of prejudice and 23 the Foman factors weigh in favor of granting the plaintiffs’ 24 motion for leave to amend their complaint. 25 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to file 26 a second amended complaint (Docket No. 25), be, and the same 27 thereby is, GRANTED. 28 /// 1 | Dated: November 25, 2019 . 2 sstiil latieanes WA fhdilhem WILLIAM B. SHUBB 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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