CA Sportfishing Protection Alliance v. Allison ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING No. 2:20-cv-02482 WBS AC PROTECTION ALLIANCE, 13 Plaintiff, 14 ORDER RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO v. FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 15 KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 COUNTY OF AMADOR, a public agency of the State of 19 California, 20 Plaintiff, 21 v. 22 KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al., 23 Defendants. 24 25 ----oo0oo---- 26 This matter is before the court on the motion of 27 plaintiff County of Amador (“Amador”) for leave to file a First 28 Amended Complaint. (See Mot. (Docket No. 24).) Because the 1 amendment would have the effect of dismissing all claims against 2 the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 3 (“CDCR”) as well as Amador’s breach of contract claim in its 4 entirety, the parties argue whether the dismissal should be 5 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) or Federal Rule 6 of Civil Procedure 41(a). The court finds good cause to grant 7 the motion under either standard. 8 Amador has requested that dismissal be without 9 prejudice to reasserting its breach of contract claim against 10 CDCR in state court. (See Mot. at 7, 9-10; Reply at 8 (Docket 11 No. 31).) As defendants have identified no legal prejudice they 12 would suffer if CDCR is dismissed -- agreeing that dismissal is 13 proper -- the court will grant Amador’s motion to dismiss CDCR as 14 a defendant. The court also finds good cause allow Amador to 15 amend its complaint so as to dismiss its breach of contract 16 claim. Defendants argue that Amador has unduly delayed the 17 requested dismissal by continuing to propound discovery on CDCR 18 after defendants asserted Eleventh Amendment immunity on CDCR’s 19 behalf, such that good cause is lacking. (See Opp. at 2-6 20 (Docket No. 30).) However, with the information before it, the 21 court cannot conclude that Amador’s conduct evinces undue delay 22 or bad faith. 23 Defendants ask that the court give defendants Allison 24 and Covello 30 days to respond to Amador’s amended complaint. As 25 Amador has not objected to this request, and because the 26 additional time would not appear to prejudice Amador, the court 27 will grant this request. Defendants’ request that the court 28 exercise its inherent power to impose monetary sanctions on 1 Amador for its alleged bad faith conduct in this litigation will 2 be denied, however. To the extent defendants seek sanctions 3 related to representations Amador has made to the court during 4 the course of this litigation, they must do so via separate 5 motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2). And to the extent that 6 defendants seek sanctions related to Amador’s conduct during the 7 course of discovery, such a request would be properly before the 8 magistrate judge assigned to this case, rather than the 9 undersigned. 10 Finally, defendants’ request that the court 11 preemptively strike portions of the prayer for relief from 12 Amador’s yet-unfiled amended complaint is premature. Such 13 requests are properly made, if at all, via motion under Federal 14 Rule of Civil Procedure 12 once Amador’s First Amended Complaint 15 has been filed. See, e.g., Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft 16 Co., 618 F.3d 970, 974 (9th Cir. 2010). 17 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Amador’s motion to amend 18 the complaint to dismiss CDCR as a defendant in this case and 19 dismiss its breach of contract claim be, and the same hereby is, 20 GRANTED.1 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ requests for 22 monetary sanctions and to strike portions of the amended 23 complaint’s prayer for relief be, and the same hereby are, 24 DENIED. 25 Defendants shall have 30 days from the date they are 26 27 1 The court’s grant of leave to amend to dismiss CDCR and the breach of contract claim are without prejudice to Amador 28 filing its breach of contract claim against CDCR in state court. nee nnn ene en nen en ann enn nnn nn nnn nn ne on I 1 served with Amador’s amended complaint to respond thereto. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. . 3 | Dated: January 25, 2022 bitte Ah ha bee WILLIAM B. SHUBB 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28