Bradley v. County of Sacramento Dept. of Human Assistance ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUBY BRADLEY, No. 2:19-cv-02419-TLN-CKD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN 15 ASSISTANCE, 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 20 Plaintiff Ruby Bradley (“Plaintiff”) has filed this civil action seeing relief under Title VII 21 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Employment and Housing Act, and the Americans with 22 Disabilities Act.1 (ECF No. 1.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 23 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 24 On November 11, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 25 were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 26 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 29.) On November 25, 2020, 27 1 Plaintiff initiated this matter pro se but is currently represented by counsel, as discussed 28 herein. 1 Plaintiff timely filed Objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 33.) On 2 December 1, 2020, Defendant filed a Response to Plaintiff’s Objections. (ECF No. 34.) 3 This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which 4 objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 5 Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982); see 6 also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed 7 findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court assumes its correctness and 8 decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th 9 Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi 10 Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 11 Having carefully reviewed the entire file under the applicable legal standards, and good 12 cause appearing, the Court finds that it is appropriate to adopt in part and reject in part the 13 Findings and Recommendations for the reasons stated herein. 14 Plaintiff initiated this action pro se and filed her First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) while 15 proceeding pro se. (ECF Nos. 1, 22.) The recent Findings and Recommendations recommended 16 dismissal with prejudice because Plaintiff’s FAC failed to cure the defects of the original 17 Complaint and it did not appear that Plaintiff would be able to cure such defects through further 18 amendment. (ECF No. 29.) The Court agrees the FAC is deficient. 19 However, after the magistrate judge issued the Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff 20 moved to allow Kellan Steven Patterson to appear in this action as Plaintiff’s counsel of record 21 and the magistrate judge granted Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF Nos. 30–31.) Plaintiff’s Objections 22 seek leave to file an amended complaint on the basis that Plaintiff may now, with the benefit of 23 counsel, cure the previously identified defects. (ECF No. 33 at 3–4.) Plaintiff further argues that 24 she can now more readily utilize the informal meet and confer process to resolve any legal 25 contentions with Defendant prior to filing an amended complaint so as to avoid the need for 26 further motions to dismiss. (Id. at 4.) The Court finds Plaintiff’s arguments are persuasive. 27 “[L]eave to amend should be granted if it appears at all possible that the plaintiff can correct the 28 defect.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (quoting Balistreri v. 1 Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 701 (9th Cir. 1988)). Therefore, in light of counsel’s 2 appearance on behalf of Plaintiff, the Court rejects the Findings and Recommendations with 3 respect to the recommendation to dismiss the FAC with prejudice and instead grants leave to file 4 an amended complaint. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed on November 12, 2020 (ECF No. 29), are 7 adopted in part and rejected in part as follows: 8 2. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 23) is GRANTED with leave to amend. 9 3. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint not later than thirty days after the electronic 10 filing of this Order. Defendant shall file a responsive pleading in accordance with the Local 11 Rules and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 DATED: December 17, 2020 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28