Estate of Jonathan Madrigal v. County of El Dorado ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ESTATE OF JONATHAN MADRIGAL, No. 2:23-cv-02673-MCE-AC et al., 12 Plaintiffs, 13 ORDER v. 14 COUNTY OF EL DORADO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ unopposed Motion to Amend the 18 Complaint (ECF No. 20) to substitute named parties for the Doe Defendants and to add 19 factual allegations pertinent to, among other things, the actions taken by those newly 20 named parties. Already pending is a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10) filed by a subset of 21 Defendants. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’ Motion is GRANTED, and the 22 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as moot.1 23 Generally, a motion to amend is subject to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a),2 24 which provides that “[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so 25 26 1 Because oral argument would not have been of material assistance, the Court ordered this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Local Rule 230(g). 27 2 All further references to “Rule” or “Rules” are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 28 1 | requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). However, once a pretrial scheduling order is filed 2 | pursuant to Rule 16, “that rule’s standards controll[].”. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 3 | Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992). 4 Under Rule 16(b), a party seeking leave to amend must demonstrate “good 5 | cause,” which “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” 6 | Id. at 609. “Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing 7 | modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion [to amend], the focus of 8 | the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.” Id. “If that party 9 | was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” Id. Only upon a finding of good cause will the 10 | court then evaluate the request to amend the complaint in light of Rule 15(a)’s liberal 11 | standard. 12 Although a scheduling order has issued in this case, there is some question as to 13 | whether the time to amend set forth within has yet passed and thus what standard the 14 | Court should apply here. However, because the Court concludes that given the 15 || circumstances of this case Plaintiffs have shown both the requisite good cause under 16 | Rule 16 and that leave to amend should freely be permitted under Rule 15, it need not 17 || determine which Rule governs. 18 Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend (ECF No. 20) is GRANTED, and 19 | Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10) is DENIED as moot. Not later than five (5) 20 | days following the date this Order is electronically filed, Plaintiffs shall file their First 21 | Amended Complaint on the docket. 22 IT |S SO ORDERED. 23 | Dated: June 20, 2024 Matw LEK ee NK 8 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28