Cavazos v. County of Fresno ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LOIDA CAVAZOS, Case No. 1:23-cv-00859-JLT-BAM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER VACATING DECEMBER 1, 2023 HEARING 13 v. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 14 COUNTY OF FRESNO, et al., MOTION TO AMEND 15 Defendants. (Doc. 13) 16 17 Plaintiff Loida Cavazos initiated this civil rights action on June 6, 2023, against 18 Defendants County of Fresno and DOES 1-10. (Doc. 1.) Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s 19 motion seeking leave to file a first amended complaint to substitute Deputy Emilo Reyes in place 20 of a DOE defendant. (Doc. 13.) Defendant County of Fresno (“Defendant”) filed a statement of 21 non-opposition on October 26, 2023. (Doc. 14.) A reply is unnecessary. 22 In the absence of opposition, the motion hearing set for December 1, 2023, is VACATED, 23 and the matter is deemed submitted. L. R. 230(g). Having considered the unopposed motion, 24 along with the record in this case, Plaintiff’s motion to amend will be GRANTED. 25 DISCUSSION 26 Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a court “should freely give 27 leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The United States Supreme 28 1 Court has stated: 2 [i]n the absence of any apparent or declared reason—such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies 3 by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc. —the leave sought 4 should, as the rules require, be “freely given.” 5 Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). The intent of the rule is to “facilitate decision on the 6 merits, rather than on the pleadings or technicalities.” Chudacoff v. Univ. Med. Center of S. Nev., 7 649 F.3d 1143, 1152 (9th Cir. 2011). Consequently, the “policy of favoring amendments to 8 pleadings should be applied with ‘extreme liberality.’” United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 9 (9th Cir. 1981). 10 Courts consider five factors in determining whether justice requires allowing amendment 11 under Rule 15(a): “bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, 12 and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.” Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 13 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted); Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 14 1995) (citing Western Shoshone Nat’l Council v. Molini, 951 F.2d 200, 204 (9th Cir. 1991)). 15 These factors are not of equal weight as prejudice to the opposing party has long been held to be 16 the most critical factor in determining whether to grant leave to amend. Eminence Capital, LLC 17 v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (“As this circuit and others have held, it is 18 the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight”); Jackson v. 19 Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Prejudice to the opposing party is the 20 most important factor.”). Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining factors, a 21 presumption exists under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend. Eminence Capital, 316 22 F.3d at 1052. 23 Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint to substitute Deputy Reyes in place of a DOE 24 defendant. According to the motion, Plaintiff only recently learned, after obtaining initial 25 disclosures from Defendant, that Deputy Reyes was the shooting officer who allegedly used 26 excessive deadly force against the decedent. (Doc. 13.) Defendant does not oppose amendment 27 of the complaint “to add the name of a deputy previously referred to as a ‘doe’ defendant.” (Doc. 28 14 at p. 2.) 1 Having considered the moving papers, as well as Defendant’s non-opposition, the Court 2 finds that there will be little prejudice to Defendant in permitting the amendment. Discovery is in 3 its initial stages and non-expert discovery remains open through September 20, 2024. The Court 4 additionally finds that Plaintiff has not unduly delayed in seeking to amend the complaint, the 5 amendment is not brought in bad faith, and there is no indication that such amendment is futile. 6 Accordingly, leave to file a first amended complaint will be granted. 7 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 8 For the reasons discussed above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Doc. 13) is GRANTED; 10 2. Within five (5) court days after issuance of this Order, Plaintiff shall file a First 11 Amended Complaint to substitute Deputy Emilo Reyes in place of a DOE defendant. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 Dated: October 30, 2023 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28