Guy v. Lorenzen
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Deovante L. Guy filed an unopposed motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint to substitute the names of three police officers for previously unidentified 'Does.' The Court granted the motion, deeming the defendants' failure to oppose as consent under local rules and finding no prejudice or futility under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Grant Plaintiff's unopposed motion for leave to file Third Amended Complaint“Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to amend the pleading. (ECF No. 38.)” | agree with court The court correctly applied the 'freely given' standard of Rule 15(a)(2) and the Ninth Circuit's four-factor test for leave to amend. The substitution of names for 'Does' based on discovery is a standard and non-prejudicial amendment. The court also correctly applied Civil Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c) to treat the lack of opposition as consent, given the defendants had adequate notice and time to respond. |
Deny as moot Plaintiff's first motion to amend the pleading“Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff's first motion to amend the pleading. (ECF No. 34.)” | agree with court The first motion (ECF No. 34) was superseded by the amended motion (ECF No. 38) which was granted. Denying the superseded motion as moot is the standard procedural mechanism to clear the docket. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable rule for post-answer amendments (Rule 15), applies the correct Ninth Circuit test for evaluating such motions, and correctly utilizes the local rule regarding non-opposition to support the grant. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a routine, unopposed motion to substitute party names.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEOVANTE L. GUY, Case No. 20-cv-02027-BAS-BLM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. UNOPPOSED MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT (ECF No. 38) 14 MATTHEW LORENZEN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Deovante L. Guy’s unopposed, amended 18 motion for leave to file Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”). (ECF No. 38.) Through the 19 amendment, Guy seeks to substitute the following individuals as Does 1, 2, and 3: San 20 Diego Police Officers Paul MacIntyre, Christopher Senior, and Cory Sims. (Id.) Plaintiff 21 represents that the true names of these officers were unknown to him until their identities 22 were revealed through discovery. (Id.) 23 Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(2) provides that a party opposing a motion must file either 24 an opposition or a statement of non-opposition no later than fourteen calendar days prior 25 to the noticed hearing date. If a party fails to comply with this rule, “that failure may 26 constitute a consent to the granting of a motion or other request for ruling by the court.” 27 Civ. L.R. 7.1(f)(3)(c). Here, because Plaintiff’s amended motion noticed the hearing date 28 of January 31, 2022, Defendant had until January 17, 2022, to oppose the motion. No 1 || opposition was filed as of the date of the Order. Because Defendants were made aware of 2 ||the motion and had ample time to respond to it, the Court deems their non-opposition to 3 || Plaintiff's motion as consent to granting it. Civ. L.R. 7.1(f)(3)(c). 4 In addition, the Court’s own review of the record supports granting Plaintiff leave to 5 || file the TAC. Under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a post-answer 6 ||amendment may only be filed with the leave of court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The leave 7 || to amend should be freely given “when justice so requires.” Jd. “The propriety of a motion 8 || for leave to amend is generally determined by reference to several factors: (1) undue delay; 9 ||(2) bad faith; (3) futility of amendment; and (4) prejudice to the opposing party.” Jnt’l 10 || ’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Republic Airlines, 761 F.2d 1386, 1390 (9th 11 1985). None of these factors is present here. 12 Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to amend the pleading. (ECF No. 38.) 13 Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff's first motion to amend the pleading. (ECF 14 || No. 34.) On or before January 31, 2022, Plaintiff shall file the proposed pleading attached 15 ||as Exhibit B to his motion as his Third Amended Complaint. 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 /\ yy 19 || DATED: January 24, 2022 ( itl A (pha □ 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28