Rosemary H. Mullins v. County of Fresno ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ROSEMARY HINOJOSA MULLINS, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00405-AWI-SAB 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED REQUEST TO AMEND COMPLAINT 12 v. (ECF Nos. 15, 18) 13 COUNTY OF FRESNO, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 On December 29, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation allowing Plaintiff Rosemary 17 Mullins (“Mullins”) to amend the second amended complaint (ECF No. 15) pursuant to Federal 18 Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). (ECF No. 18.) More specifically, the parties stipulated to 19 amend the second amended complaint to strike paragraph 59 of the negligence cause of action, 20 which states “Moreover, the County failed to properly screen, train, and monitor its employees,” 21 on the basis that the allegation might be read to allege direct, rather than derivative, liability 22 against the County of Fresno. (Id.) 23 “Rule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when justice so 24 requires.’ ” Amerisource Bergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) 25 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). Leave to amend under Rule 15 is “within the sound discretion of 26 the trial court,” and “[i]n exercising this discretion, a court must be guided by the underlying 27 purpose of Rule 15 to facilitate decision on the merits, rather than on the pleadings or technicalities.” United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981). The Court finds good 1 | cause exists to grant the stipulated request. 2 Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties and good cause presented, IT IS HEREBY 3 | ORDERED that: 4 1. The parties’ stipulated request to amend the second amended complaint pursuant 5 to Rule 15(a)(2) (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED; and 6 2. Paragraph 59 of the second amended complaint (ECF No. 15 § 59) is hereby 7 STRICKEN. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAA (e_ 19 | Dated: _ January 3, 2022 _ 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28