Mann v. City of Chula Vista

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 CARLOS EUGENE MANN, Case No.: 18-cv-2525-WQH-MDD

11 Plaintiff, ORDER 12 v. 13 CITY OF CHULA VISTA; CHULA VISTA POLICE 14 DEPARTMENT; OFFICER 15 FREDERICO DOMINGUEZ; OFFICER Y. MARTINEZ; and 16 DOES 1-10, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 HAYES, Judge: 19 The matter before the Court is the Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended 20 Complaint filed by Plaintiff Carlos Eugene Mann. (ECF No. 39). 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 On November 5, 2018, Plaintiff Carlos Eugene Mann, proceeding pro se, filed a 23 Complaint against Defendants City of Chula Vista, Chula Vista Police Department 24 (“CVPD”), CVPD Officer Frederico Dominguez, CVPD Officer Yamil Martinez, and 25 Does 1 through 10, inclusive. (ECF No. 1). Mann amended the Complaint on July 31, 2019. 26 (ECF No. 27). 27 28 1 On August 14, 2019, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Mann’s Amended 2 Complaint. (ECF No. 30). On November 7, 2019, the Court issued an Order granting 3 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and dismissing Mann’s Amended Complaint without 4 prejudice and with leave to file a motion for leave to amend the Complaint. 5 On February 6, 2020, Mann filed a “Second Amended Complaint,” which the Court 6 construed as a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 39). 7 Mann seeks leave to amend the Complaint to add claims for “Failure to Prevent 8 Discrimination and Harassment in Violation of Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(k)” and 9 “Selective and Vindictive Criminal Processing.” (ECF No. 30 at 2). Mann further seeks to 10 add additional factual allegations, requests for relief, and exhibits. 11 On February 26, 2020, Defendants filed an Opposition to Mann’s Motion for Leave 12 to File a Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 41). Defendants contend that Mann fails 13 to provide the grounds for amendment or for “belatedly adding any of the new allegations 14 and causes of action.” (Id. at 5). Defendants contend that Mann fails to allege facts the cure 15 the deficiencies in the Amended Complaint. Defendants contend that amendment would 16 be futile because Mann fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 17 On March 8, 2020, Mann filed a Reply. (ECF No. 43). Mann contends that the 18 additional factual allegations cure the deficiencies in the Amended Complaint. 20 Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that leave to amend “be 21 freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “This policy is to be applied 22 with extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th 23 Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (quoting Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 24 712 (9th Cir. 2001)). The Supreme Court has identified several factors district courts should 25 consider when deciding whether to grant leave to amend: “undue delay, bad faith or 26 dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by 27 amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of 28 allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of amendment.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 1 || 182 (1962); see also Smith v. Pac. Props. Dev. Corp., 358 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th Cir. 2004). 2 all of the [Foman] factors merit equal weight. As this circuit and others have held, it 3 the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight.” 4 ||Eminence Capital, LLC, 316 F.3d at 1052. “The party opposing amendment bears the 5 || burden of showing prejudice.” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th 6 || Cir. 1987). “Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman factors, 7 || there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Eminence 8 || Capital, LLC, 316 F.3d at 1052. 10 The issue of whether Mann alleges facts sufficient to state a claim upon which relief 11 be granted is properly resolved on a motion to dismiss, rather than a motion for leave 12 ||to file an amended complaint. Defendants have not shown that they would be prejudiced 13 || by the amendment or made “a strong showing” of undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive, 14 || or repeated failure to cure deficiencies. Jd. The Court finds that Defendants have failed to 15 ||}demonstrate that the Foman factors warrant deviating from the “presumption under Rule 16 || 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Jd. (emphasis omitted). Accordingly, 17 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Mann’s Motion for Leave to File a Second 18 || Amended Complaint (ECF No. 39) is granted. The Court construes the Second Amended 19 || Complaint (ECF No. 39-1 through 39-3) filed on the date of this Order. 20 || Dated: April 6, 2020 BME: Me Z. A a 21 Hon. William Q. Hayes United States District Court 23 24 25 26 27 28