Hoskins v. City of San Diego

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 NICHOLAS HOSKINS, Case No.: 24-cv-01488-AJB-DTF Plaintiff, 12 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT 14 CITY OF SAN DIEGO and SAN DIEGO 15 POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICER (Doc. No. 29) DOES 1–4. 16 Defendants. 17 18 Before the Court is Plaintiff Nicholas Hoskins’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for leave to file 19 an amended complaint.1 (Doc. No. 29.) On September 16, 2025, Defendant City of San 20 Diego (“Defendant”) filed a notice of non-opposition. (Doc. No. 31.) 21 Pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “a party may amend its 22 pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave” after the time 23 for amendment as a matter of course has expired. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “The court 24 should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Id. “Five factors are taken into account 25 to assess the propriety of a motion for leave to amend: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to 26 the opposing party, futility of amendment, and whether the plaintiff has previously 27 1 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1, the Court finds the matter suitable for determination on the 28 1 ||amended the complaint.” Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004). “Not 2 of the factors merit equal weight[; rather,] it is the consideration of prejudice to the 3 || opposing party that carries the greatest weight.” Eminence Cap., LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 4 || F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). “Absent prejudice, or a strong showing” of the remaining 5 ||factors, there exists a “presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to 6 |}amend.” Jd. The party opposing the amendment bears the burden of showing why leave 7 ||should be denied, including the burden of establishing prejudice. DCD Programs, Ltd. v. 8 || Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987). 9 The Court finds that all factors weigh in favor of permitting amendment. 10 Specifically, this is the first request to amend the complaint, the amendment is for the 11 |/limited purpose of naming San Diego Police Department Officer Does (“Defendant 12 || Officers”) (see generally Doc. No. 29-2), Defendant does not oppose the motion (Doc. No. 13 discovery has just commenced prior to a scheduling order being issued (Doc. No. 26), 14 || and the claims against Defendant Officers have survived a motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 21). 15 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion. Plaintiff is directed to file the 16 || First Amended Complaint (see Doc. No. 29-1) no later than September 19, 2025. 18 ||Dated: September 17, 2025 © ¢ 19 Hon, Anthony J.Battaglia 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28