Edwards v. Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: March 26, 2021
• Docket: 3:20-cv-07113
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TAMIRE EDWARDS, Case No. 20-cv-07113-JSC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: MOTION TO AMEND 9 v. THE COMPLAINT

10 BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT (BART), Re: Dkt. No. 24 Defendant. 11

12 13 Plaintiff Tamire Edwards filed this civil rights excessive force action against Bay Area 14 Rapid Transit (BART). Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint to add additional facts, name 15 doe defendants, and omit claims is now pending before the Court.1 (Dkt. No. 24.) BART has 16 filed a statement of non-opposition to the motion to amend. (Dkt. No. 25.) After carefully 17 considering Plaintiff’s brief and the relevant legal authority, the Court concludes that oral 18 argument is unnecessary, see Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), VACATES the April 1, 2021 hearing, and 19 GRANTS the unopposed motion to amend. 20 DISCUSSION 21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) states that a party may amend a pleading before 22 trial “with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave” and that the “court should 23 freely give leave when justice so requires.” Though Rule 15(a) is “very liberal ... a district court 24 need not grant leave to amend where the amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is 25 sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue delay in litigation; or (4) is futile.” AmerisourceBergen 26 Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006). Undue delay cannot alone justify 27 1 the denial of a motion to amend. Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 2 712–13 (9th Cir. 2001). The most important factor is prejudice to the opposing party. Zenith Radio 3 Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 330–31 (1971). A “determination should be 4 performed with all inferences in favor of granting the motion.” Griggs v. Pace Am. Group, Inc., 5 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999). 6 Here, Plaintiff seeks leave to amend the complaint to name BART Police Sergeant Spears 7 and BART Police Officer Yip as Defendants, to add additional factual allegations, and to omit his 8 claims for false arrest and false imprisonment. (Compare Dkt. No. 24-1 with Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff 9 contends that amendment is necessary because “Plaintiff has learned that certain facts need to be 10 corrected in the operative complaint to make a clear record of the events that had actually 11 transpired and certain claims need to be discarded.” (Dkt. No. 24 at 2.2) 12 The Court agrees that leave to amend is proper here. First, there is no evidence of material 13 prejudice to BART. See Owens, 244 F.3d at 712 (finding appellants suffered no prejudice when 14 appellee amended its answer because there was no delay in proceedings or required additional 15 discovery). This case is in its early stages and fact discovery does not close until January 14, 16 2022—10 months from now. 17 Second, there is no evidence of bad faith. See Owens, 244 F.3d at 712 (finding no evidence 18 of bad faith because Appellee offered “substantial competent evidence” as to why it delayed in 19 filing a motion to amend). Plaintiff has moved to amend to clarify the facts, substitute doe 20 defendants, and dismiss non-viable claims. 21 Third, there is no evidence of undue delay. Plaintiff has moved for leave to amend before 22 the deadline to do so and after early discovery clarified the events at issue. See Owens, 244 F.3d 23 at 712–13 (finding no unreasonable delay because appellee moved to amend as soon as it became 24 aware of an applicable defense). 25 Finally, “a proposed amendment is futile only if no set of facts can be proved under the 26 amendment to the pleadings that would constitute a valid and sufficient claim or defense.” 27 1 Sweaney v. Ada County, 119 F.3d 1385, 1393 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal quotations omitted). Here, 2 || there is nothing to suggest that amendment of Plaintiff's complaint to clarify these facts or add 3 these defendants would be futile. 4 Accordingly, the balance of factors supports granting Plaintiff leave to amend under Rule 5 15(a)(2). 6 CONCLUSION 7 For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's unopposed motion to amend the complaint is 8 GRANTED. (Dkt. No. 24.) Plaintiff shall file the proposed amended complaint within 3 business 9 days. 10 This Order disposes of Docket No. 24. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: March 26, 2021 □ Ste me 5 ACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY United States Magistrate Judge 16

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28