Reyes v. United States of America ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MARCO A. REYES, individually, Case No.: 20-cv-1752-WQH-LL 11 Plaintiff, ORDER 12 v. 13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; and DOE CBP OFFICERS 1-30, individually 14 and in their official capacities, inclusive, 15 Defendants. 16 HAYES, Judge: 17 The matter before the Court is the Motion for Leave to File Second 18 19 Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff Marco A. Reyes. (ECF No. 22). I. BACKGROUND 20 On September 8, 2020, Plaintiff Reyes initiated this action by filing a Complaint 21 against Defendants United States of America and DOE Customs and Border Protection 22 (CBP) officers. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on April 26, 2021. 23 (ECF No. 14). The Amended Complaint alleges that “[w]ithout reason or justification, 24 U.S. Customs and Border Protection Officers at the Otay Mesa Port of Entry severely beat, 25 injured, and arrested Plaintiff . . . .” Id. at ¶ 1. Plaintiff brings the following ten causes of 26 action: (1) Bivens action for excessive force against Defendants DOE CBP officers; (2) 27 Bivens action for illegal arrest against Defendants DOE CBP officers; (3) Bivens action 28 1 for falsification of evidence against Defendants DOE CBP officers; (4) violation of the 2 Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.) against Defendant United States of America; 3 (5) violation of the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) for false imprisonment against 4 Defendant United States of America; (6) violation of the FTCA for assault against 5 Defendant United States of America; (7) violation of the FTCA for battery against 6 Defendant United States of America; (8) violation of the FTCA for negligence against 7 Defendant United States of America; (9) violation of the Bane Act (California Civil Code 8 § 52.1) against Defendant United States of America; and (10) violation of the FTCA for 9 intentional infliction of emotional distress against Defendant United States of America. 10 (ECF No. 14). On May 10, 2021, Defendants filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint. 11 (ECF No. 15). 12 On August 13, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File Second Amended 13 Complaint. (ECF No. 22). Plaintiff seeks to amend the Amended Complaint to substitute 14 the names of previously unidentified Defendants. (ECF No. 22 Ex. A). Defendants have 15 not filed any opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. 16 II. LEGAL STANDARD 17 Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that leave to amend “be 18 freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “This policy is to be applied 19 with extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th 20 Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (quoting Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 21 712 (9th Cir. 2001)). The Supreme Court has identified several factors district courts 22 should consider when deciding whether to grant leave to amend: “undue delay, bad faith 23 or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by 24 amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of 25 allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of amendment.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 26 182 (1962); see also Smith v. Pac. Props. Dev. Corp., 358 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th Cir. 2004). 27 “Not all of the [Foman] factors merit equal weight. As this circuit and others have held, it 28 is the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight.” 1 || Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. “The party opposing amendment bears the burden of 2 ||showing prejudice.” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987). 3 || “Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman factors, there exists 4 ||a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Eminence Capital, 5 || 316 F.3d at 1052. 6 DISCUSSION 7 The proposed amendments substitutes the names of previously unidentified 8 ||Defendants. Plaintiff could not have reasonably known this information until Defendants 9 || responded to Plaintiffs discovery requests, after Defendants filed an Answer on May 10, 10 2021. Allowing amendment will not cause undue delay. The fact that Plaintiff could not 11 reasonably known the relevant information prior to discovery demonstrates that 12 || Plaintiff is acting in good faith and that Plaintiff's previous amendment could not have 13 ||cured the deficiencies at issue. Defendants have not filed any opposition to □□□□□□□□□□□ 14 ||Motion. The Foman factors weigh in favor of granting Plaintiff leave to amend. 15 CONCLUSION 16 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File Second Amended 17 ||Complaint (ECF No. 22) is granted. Plaintiff shall file the proposed second amended 18 |}complaint attached as Exhibit A to the Motion within five (5) days of the date of this Order. 19 || Dated: September 28, 2021 Nitta Ze. A a 20 Hon, William Q. Hayes 71 United States District Court 22 23 24 25 26 27 28