Wood v. City of Sacramento ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 BRANDY WOOD, an individual, No. 2:20-cv-00497 WBS DB 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. ORDER RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 15 CITY OF SACRAMENTO, a municipal corporation; JASON WARREN in his 16 individual capacity as a police officer for the Sacramento 17 Police Department; and DOES 1- 50, inclusive, 18 Defendants. 19 20 ----oo0oo---- 21 22 Plaintiff Brandy Wood brought this § 1983 action 23 against the City of Sacramento and Sacramento police officer 24 Jason Warren, asserting various constitutional and state tort 25 claims. (Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) (Docket No. 16).) 26 Plaintiff’s claims arise out of an injury she suffered, and other 27 treatment she experienced, during a protest in 2019. (See id.) 28 The case is now before the court on plaintiff’s motion for leave 1 to file a Third Amended Complaint. (Docket No. 29.) 2 Once the district court has issued a pretrial 3 scheduling order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, 4 which establishes a timetable for amending pleadings, that rule’s 5 standards control the court’s analysis of whether leave to amend 6 a pleading should be granted. See Johnson v. Mammoth 7 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607–08 (9th Cir. 1992). Under 8 Rule 16, “[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and 9 with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The “‘good 10 cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party 11 seeking the amendment.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. 12 A party seeking amendment must also show that the 13 amendment is proper under Rule 15, see id. at 608 (citations 14 omitted), under which leave to amend should be given “freely 15 . . . when justice so requires,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Leave 16 should only be denied if amendment (1) would cause prejudice to 17 the opposing party, (2) is sought in bad faith, (3) would create 18 undue delay, or (4) is futile. Chudacoff v. Univ. Med. Ctr. of 19 S. Nev., 649 F.3d 1143, 1152 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). 20 “Because Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ inquiry essentially 21 incorporates the first three factors, if a court finds that good 22 cause exists, it should then deny a motion for leave to amend 23 only if such amendment would be futile.” J & J Sports Prods., 24 Inc. v. Maravilla, 2:12-cv-2899 WBS EFB, 2013 WL 4780764, at *1 25 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2013). 26 Plaintiff seeks leave to amend for the sole purpose of 27 naming Sacramento police officer Leah Antonetti as a defendant 28 instead of officer Warren. (See Mot. at 4 (Docket No. 29); SAC; eee eee EE II EE 1 Proposed Third Amended Complaint (Docket No. 31).) She does so 2 on the grounds that (1) Antonetti is the proper defendant and 3 (2) following an August 2020 request for production of documents, 4 defendants failed until September 2021 to produce body-worn 5 camera footage revealing that Antonetti is the correct defendant, 6 | preventing plaintiff from learning this information until then. 7 (See Mot. at 2-3.) 8 In a declaration, plaintiff’s counsel states that he 9 asked defendants to stipulate to leave to amend, and that 10 although defendants’ counsel refused, they stated that they would 11 not oppose a motion for leave to amend. (Decl. of Patrick Buelna 12 at @@ 11-12 (Docket No. 29-4).)! The deadline to file an 13 opposition has now passed, see L.R. 230, and defendants have not 14 done so. Accordingly, good cause appearing, and because it does 15 not appear that the proposed amendment would be futile, 16 plaintiff’s motion will be granted. See Johnson, 975 F.2d at 17 609; J & J Sports Prods., 2013 WL 4780764, at *1. 18 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion for 19 Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint (Docket No. 29) be, and 20 the same hereby is, GRANTED. Plaintiff is directed to file the 21 Proposed Third Amended Complaint attached to the motion (Docket 22 No. 31) within ten days of the issuance of this Order. The 23 hearing on the motion set for March 21, 2022 is VACATED. 24 | Dated: March 8, 2022 he bloom HK Ld. bE 25 WILLIAM B. SHUBB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 I] 1 The parties have, however, since stipulated to dismiss 28 | Jason Warren as a defendant. (Docket No. 32.)