Glover v. County of San Mateo

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: September 3, 2025
• Docket: 4:24-cv-08793
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RITA GLOVER, et al., Case No. 24-cv-08793-HSG

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 49 10 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a second amended 14 complaint. Dkt. No. 49. For the following reasons, the Court grants the motion. 15 I. BACKGROUND 16 Plaintiffs initially filed this section 1983 action on December 5, 2024. See Dkt. No. 1. On 17 January 23, 2025, Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. Dkt. No. 14. Shortly thereafter, 18 Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint, Dkt. No. 15, and Defendants again moved to 19 dismiss. Dkt. No. 26. 20 On May 19, 2025, the Court issued a scheduling order setting August 19, 2025 as the 21 deadline for Plaintiffs to amend their pleadings. See Dkt. No. 46. On August 19, 2025, Plaintiffs 22 filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and explained that the amended 23 complaint would (1) name Officer Erick Chavez as a defendant and (2) add a First Amendment 24 retaliatory detention claim. Dkt. No. 49 (“Mot.”). Defendants oppose. See Dkt. Nos. 52–54. 25 II. LEGAL STANDARD 26 Since Plaintiffs timely filed this request for leave to amend by the deadline in the 27 scheduling order, the Court looks to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 to determine whether 1 amendment is appropriate.1 2 Under Rule 15(a)(1), “[a] party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course . . . 21 3 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b) . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). Under Federal 4 Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), “[i]n all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with 5 the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “[L]eave to 6 amend shall be freely granted ‘when justice so requires.’” Townsend v. Univ. of Alaska, 543 F.3d 7 478, 485 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2)). “This policy is to be applied with 8 extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) 9 (quotation omitted). When considering whether to grant leave to amend, the court considers 10 several factors, including (1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) 11 futility of amendment, and (5) previous amendments. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 12 (1962). The Court weighs prejudice to the opposing party most heavily. Eminence Capital, 316 13 F.3d at 1052. “Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman factors, 14 there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Id. (emphasis in 15 original). 16 III. DISCUSSION 17 Upon considering the relevant factors, the Court finds that leave to file a second amended 18 complaint should be granted under this circuit’s liberal standard. 19 Plaintiffs’ request is timely and does not appear to be made in bad faith. On July 7, 2025, 20 Plaintiffs received an extensive document production, including body worn camera footage, from 21 Defendant Redwood City. Dkt. No. 49-1 at 2. Within six weeks, Plaintiffs reviewed the 22 disclosures and requested leave to amend. Id. Moreover, Plaintiffs filed their motion for leave to 23 amend before the amendment of pleadings deadline expired and sought to work with opposing 24 counsel to avoid a contested motion. See id. 25 Amendment is also unlikely to prejudice Defendants. Plaintiffs seek to add a First 26 1 Defendants argue that the deadline for Plaintiffs to file a motion for leave to amend was “no 27 later than July 15, 2025 – 35 days prior to the last day for the Court to hear any such motion 1 Amendment retaliatory detention claim, based on the same material facts already alleged in prior 2 || complaints, and to substitute a named officer for a previously unidentified Doe Defendant. The 3 || essence of the case remains what it has been from the beginning: Plaintiffs’ claims about a number 4 || of allegedly unlawful actions by Defendants during an altercation in a park. And in any event, the 5 || expansion of a case due to the addition of new causes of action is not inherently prejudicial, 6 || especially when a case is still in its early stages. See Union Pac. R. Co. v. Nevada Power Co., 950 7 F.2d 1429, 1432 (9th Cir. 1991). In addition, the Court cannot conclude that amendment would 8 || be futile, and Plaintiffs have only amended their complaint once before. For these reasons, the 9 Court finds leave to amend the complaint to be warranted. 10 IV. CONCLUSION 11 The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint, Dkt. No. 49. 12 || Plaintiffs shall file their second amended complaint on the docket within three days from the date 5 13 of this order. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 26, is TERMINATED AS MOOT in light 14 || of the second amended complaint. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 || Datea: 9/3/2025 18 Alaipurel 5 Mb |). HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28