Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THE ESTATE OF ABDUL KAMARA, et Case No.: 25-cv-0226-AJB-VET al., 12 ORDER:

13 Plaintiffs, (1) GRANTING MOTION FOR 14 EXTENSION OF TIME FOR v. PLAINTIFFS TO FILE AN AMENDED 15 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., COMPLAINT; and 16 Defendants. (2) DENYING JOINT MOTION FOR 17 LEAVE TO FILE SECOND 18 AMENDED COMPLAINT 19 (Doc. Nos. 57, 59) 20 21 Before the Court are two motions: (1) the parties’ joint motion to file an amended 22 complaint (Doc. No. 57), and (2) Plaintiffs’ ex parte motion to extend their deadline to file 23 an amended complaint (Doc. No. 59). The Court first addresses the ex parte motion and 24 then turns to the request to file an amended complaint. 25 I. Ex Parte Motion To Extend Deadline To File An Amended Complaint 26 Plaintiffs’ ex parte motion seeks to extend their deadline to file an amended 27 complaint. (Doc. No. 59.) Plaintiffs’ current deadline to join other parties or to file an 28 amended complaint is July 27, 2026. (See Doc. No. 50.) They seek to extend that deadline 1 to August 17, 2026. (Doc. No. 59.) As grounds for the extension, Plaintiffs provide that 2 Defendant County of San Diego’s discovery responses are currently due on July 31, 2026, 3 and Defendant City of Vista (“Vista”) provided its discovery responses on July 20, 2026. 4 (Id. at 2.) Plaintiffs state that they “may wish to supplement the factual allegations of an 5 amended complaint depending on the discovery responses.” (Id.) Thus, Plaintiffs request a 6 three-week extension of time to file an amended complaint. (Id.) 7 Vista opposes the request. (Doc. No. 60.) Though styled as an opposition to 8 Plaintiffs’ request for an extension, Vista’s opposition challenges Plaintiffs’ request to 9 amend the complaint—not their request to extend the deadline to do so. (See id.) Vista 10 argues that it “does not object to plaintiffs further amending their complaint regarding 11 claims against the County defendants to which the County has agreed.” (Id. at 2.) However, 12 Vista objects to Plaintiffs “amending their pleadings to add facts or allegations against 13 Vista . . . .” (Id.) 14 A Scheduling Order may be modified upon a showing of “good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. 15 P. 16(b)(4). The concept of good cause requires courts to consider (1) the reasons for the 16 failure to comply with the Scheduling Order; (2) prejudice to the parties; and (3) diligence 17 of the parties in seeking to timely amend the Scheduling Order. See Johnson v. Mammoth 18 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992); AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis 19 West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 952-53 (9th Cir. 2006). 20 Having reviewed the request, the Court finds good cause to amend the scheduling 21 order. Plaintiffs seek a modest three-week extension, which will not affect other scheduling 22 order dates and deadlines. Thus, Defendants will not be prejudiced by the extension. 23 Additionally, it appears Plaintiffs have been diligent in propounding and reviewing 24 discovery requests. Based on the foregoing, the motion to extend the deadline for which 25 Plaintiffs may file a motion to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional 26 pleadings is GRANTED. (Doc. No. 59.) Any such motion must be filed by no later than 27 August 17, 2026. 28 1 II. Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint 2 The Court now turns to the joint motion to file an amended complaint. (Doc. No. 3 57.) The Court DENIES the request as premature. 4 Plaintiffs state that they intend to “amend their operative First Amended Complaint 5 to name two individual Defendants in place of Does, and to clarify and expand on their 6 allegations.” (Id.) However, to “avoid potential successive amendments and to promote 7 economy,” Plaintiffs ask the Court to grant leave to amend now, while permitting Plaintiffs 8 to file their proposed Second Amended Complaint no later than the operative deadline to 9 join parties or amend the pleadings—i.e. August 17, 2026. (Id.) Thus, the proposed Second 10 Amended Complaint attached to the joint motion (Ex. A), may not be the final version of 11 the complaint which Plaintiffs will ultimately seek to file. Accordingly, the Court DENIES 12 without prejudice the motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiffs may file a 13 subsequent motion for leave to amend, within the time permitted by this Order, once 14 Plaintiffs have finalized a proposed Second Amended Complaint.1 Vista may reassert its 15 substantive objections to the potential amendment at that time. 16 III. Conclusion 17 For the reasons stated herein, the Court ORDERS as follows: 18 1. The ex parte motion to amend the scheduling order is GRANTED.2 Any 19 motion to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional pleadings must be 20 filed by no later than August 17, 2026. 21 22 23 1 Pursuant to the Civil Local Rules, “[a]ny motion to amend a pleading must be accompanied by: (1) a 24 copy of the proposed amended pleading, and (2) a version of the proposed amended pleading that shows - through redlining, underlining, strikeouts, or other similarly effective typographic methods - how 25 the proposed amended pleading differs from the operative pleading.” CivLR 15.1.b. 26 2 Future failure to fully comply with the undersigned’s Civil Case Procedures, may be grounds for denial of the requested relief. See J. Battaglia Civ. Case Proc. § IV.B (“Requests to continue or reschedule a 27 conference, hearing, briefing schedule, or other date or deadline must be made by a motion filed no less than 7 days prior to the date the parties seek to change . . . . Requests made fewer than 7 days prior to the 28 1 2. The joint motion for leave to file an amended complaint is DENIED without 2 || prejudice. Plaintiffs may file a motion for leave to amend, within the time permitted by 3 Order, once Plaintiffs have a finalized proposed Second Amended Complaint. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: July 30, 2026 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28