Bair v. Snohomish County

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: February 18, 2020
• Docket: 2:19-cv-00998
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 5 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE 7 ) CHERYL BAIR, ) 8 ) CASE NO. 2:19-cv-00998-BJR Plaintiff ) 9 ) ) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 10 Vv. ) MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE ) SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 11 || SNOHOMISH COUNTY, et al., ) ) 12 ) Defendants, ) 13 |J[) 14 15 Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. Dkt.

16 No. 22. Through her motion, Plaintiff seeks to add previously undetermined defendants and two 17 ||new causes of action one for Equal Protection and one for negligence. Defendants do not oppose 18 || the motion as far as it seeks to add new defendants or a cause of action for Equal Protection. Dkt. 19 |/No. 24. Defendants do object to the addition of a state law negligence claim arguing that it is futile 20 as Plaintiff failed to file a claim for damages before initiating suit, as required by RCW § 4.96. Id. 21 at As Plaintiff has now filed such a form, Defendants contend that the proper course is for 22 74 her to voluntarily dismiss the current action and refile. Jd. at 6-7. Plaintiff responds both that

24 § 4.96 applies only to state tort claims, and is thus inapplicable to her federal-based claims 25 ||here alleged, and that forcing her to refile or file a separate negligence action is impractical. Dkt.

No. 26. 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 provides that courts should “freely give leave [to amend 3 || pleadings] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The Ninth Circuit has confirmed 4 || that this rule is to be applied with “‘extreme liberality” in favor of granting amendments. United 5 |] States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981) (quoting Rosenberg Bros. & Co. v. Arnold, 283 6 F.2d 406, 406 (9th Cir. 1960)); see also Hoang v. Bank of Am., N.A., 910 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th 7 Cir, 2018). 8 9 The parties dispute the efficacy of Plaintiffs efforts to comply with RCW § 4.96.

10 Resolution of this issue is best reserved for a motion to dismiss with attendant briefing. 11 The Court is unpersuaded that the delay in adding the new claims contained in Plaintiffs 12 || Second Amended Complaint prejudices Defendants. 13 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File 14 Second Amended Complaint in its entirety. 15 wt, 16 DATED this Lg day of i bs , 2019. 17 > 18 Le BARBARA J} HSTEIN 19 UNITED STA/ES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25