Pontier v. GEICO Insurance
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint to substitute a named individual, Vuong Vo, for a Doe defendant. The court denied the motion, finding that the amendment would be futile because the underlying claims had already been dismissed without leave to amend and that the plaintiff had previously amended the complaint to include Vo.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Amend Denied“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the Ninth Circuit's factors for leave to amend. The finding of futility is supported by the record, as the court had already dismissed the specific causes of action (conversion, fraud, RICO) against the corporate defendant without leave to amend. Additionally, the court correctly noted that the plaintiff had already amended the complaint to identify Vo, negating the claim of recent discovery. The decision follows from the law and the recited record. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise and directly addresses the motion. It correctly identifies the relevant legal standard and applies the specific facts of the case (previous amendment including the target defendant and prior dismissal of the claims) to deny the motion. The reasoning is sufficient to support the result.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID PONTIER, Case No.: 21cv199-LL-DDL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION TO AMEND 14 GEICO INSURANCE, et al., 15 Defendants. [ECF No. 138]
16 17 18 Before the Court is a motion to amend the First Amended Complaint filed by 19 Plaintiff David Pontier, proceeding pro se (“Motion”). ECF No. 138. Specifically, Plaintiff 20 seeks leave to substitute Vuong Vo (“Vo”), a bank manager for Defendant JPMorgan 21 Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase”), as a defendant in place of a Doe Defendant. Id. at 1–2. 22 On August 5, 2020, Plaintiff initiated this action with his original complaint. ECF 23 No. 1. On May 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). ECF No. 110. 24 On May 16, 2024 and May 17, 2024, Defendants Chase, GEICO General Insurance 25 Company, and Joseph Dang filed motions to dismiss the FAC. ECF Nos. 113, 115, 116. 26 On June 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion. 27 On March 26, 2025, the Court issued an order granting the three motions to dismiss 28 without leave to amend. ECF No. 154. 1 Plaintiff contends that Chase delayed discovery of the identity of Doe defendants— 2 unknown Chase bank employees—by claiming confidential information, and that this 3 prevented him from including Vo as a defendant when he filed his original complaint in 4 August 2020. ECF No. 138 at 3, 14. Plaintiff claims he identified Vo as the bank manager 5 in charge of check deposits at the Mira Mesa branch using alternate means of research and 6 now requests to amend the complaint to add Vo as a defendant. Id. at 14–15. Plaintiff seeks 7 to assert the same causes of action—conversion, fraud, and civil RICO—against Vo as it 8 asserted against Chase in the FAC. Id. at 38; ECF No. 138-1 at 69, 70, 202–02. 9 Generally, leave to amend should be freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. 10 Civ. P. 15(a). In deciding a motion to amend, courts consider the following factors: 11 “(1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of 12 amendment, and (5) whether plaintiff has previously amended his complaint.” Sisseton- 13 Wahpeton Sioux Tribe of Lake Traverse Indian Rsrv., N. Dakota & S. Dakota v. United 14 States, 90 F.3d 351, 355 (9th Cir. 1996). 15 The Court finds futility and previous amendment to be dispositive in this case. The 16 Court finds Plaintiff’s implication that he recently discovered the bank manager’s identity 17 and was therefore unable to add him to the complaint earlier to be disingenuous. Plaintiff 18 does not state when he learned of Vo’s identity and alleged role. Plaintiff also omits entirely 19 from the Motion that the operative complaint is not the original complaint, but the FAC 20 filed almost two months prior to his Motion. In fact, Vo is identified as the bank manager 21 in charge of deposits at the Mira Mesa branch of Chase bank in the FAC. ECF No. 110 at 22 52, 226. The allegations concerning Vo in the FAC form the basis of what Plaintiff seeks 23 to add by amending the complaint; he demonstrates no new knowledge regarding Vo. 24 Because Plaintiff previously amended his complaint and even included Vo in the FAC, this 25 factor heavily weighs against granting further amendment. Furthermore, the Court has 26 dismissed without leave to amend the causes of action against Chase. ECF No. 154. 27 / / / 28 / / / | || Because these are the same causes of action Plaintiff seeks to assert against Vo, the Court 2 finds amendment would be futile. This factor too weighs against granting amendment. 3 || Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: March 27, 2025 NO 6 COEF) 7 Honorable Linda Lopez United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28