Muhmoud v. City Of San Jose
This text of Muhmoud v. City Of San Jose (Muhmoud v. City Of San Jose) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 MUSTAFA MUHMOUD, Case No. 5:20-cv-08808-EJD
9 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S COUNTERMOTION FOR LEAVE TO 10 v. FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MOOTING 11 CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al., DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendants. 12 Re: Dkt. Nos. 35, 57
13 On December 11, 2020, Plaintiff Mustafa Muhmoud filed a complaint against Defendants 14 City of San Jose, Blage Zelalich, Richard Doyle, Christopher Creech, Paul Messier, Rick Galea, 15 Leo Prescott, Dean Whipple, Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority, Shannon Smyth-Mendoza, 16 Kevin Balak, Swenson Development Management, Inc., Barry Swenson, Market Street Partners, 17 LLC, Forrest Cerrato, Christian Hagen, Todd Rothbard, and Market Street Partners SJ, LLC. See 18 Complaint for Damages, Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff, who was representing himself pro se, asserted 19 claims for malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract, 20 and constitutional rights violations. Certain Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. 21 See City Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (“Mot.”), Dkt. No. 35. Thereafter, this Court referred 22 Plaintiff to the Federal Pro Bono Project and stayed proceedings pending appointment of counsel. 23 See Dkt. No. 49. Following appointment of counsel, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to 24 dismiss and a countermotion to file a First Amended Complaint. See Plaintiff’s Opposition for 25 Leave to File First Amended Complaint and Opposition to City Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 26 (“Opp.”), Dkt. No. 57. On April 12, 2022, City Defendants filed a reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition, 27 Case No.: 5:20-cv-08808-EJD 1 to which Plaintiff filed a reply. See City Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to 2 Dismiss (“D Reply”), Dkt. No. 58; Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Countermotion for Leave to 3 Amend (“P Reply”), Dkt. No. 61. Having considered the Parties’ papers, the Court GRANTS 4 Plaintiff’s countermotion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint and MOOTS Defendants’ 5 motion to dismiss.1 6 I. DISCUSSION 7 “The Court should freely give leave [to amend pleadings] when justice so requires.” Fed. 8 R. Civ. P. 15(a). Rule 15’s “policy of favoring amendments to pleadings should be applied with 9 ‘extreme liberality.’” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987) 10 (quoting United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981)). The party opposing the 11 amendment bears the burden of showing why leave to amend should not be granted. Ziptronix, 12 Inc. v. Ominvision Techs., 2012 WL 3155554, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2021). Additionally, the 13 court should resolve a motion for leave to amend “with all inferences in favor of granting the 14 motion.” Griggs v. Pace Am. Grp., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999) (citations omitted); see also 15 Scott v. S.F. Police Dep’t, 1995 WL 55301, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 1995) (noting that the 16 plaintiff’s pro se status and the rules permitting liberal amendment outweighed any prejudice that 17 certain amendments would cause). 18 In the Ninth Circuit, courts consider the five Foman factors when assessing whether to 19 grant a motion for leave to amend: (1) bad faith; (2) undue delay; (3) prejudice to the opposing 20 party; (4) futility of amendment; and (5) whether the plaintiff has previously amended the 21 complaint. See Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004); Foman v. Davis, 371 22 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Prejudice to the opposing party is the strongest factor and leave to amend 23 should be granted absent prejudice or a “strong showing” that the other factors are met. Eminence 24 Cap., LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). 25
26 1 This Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument pursuant to Civil 27 Local Rule 7-1(b). Case No.: 5:20-cv-08808-EJD 1 The Foman factors weigh in favor of granting Plaintiff leave to amend. First, Plaintiff’s 2 leave to amend is initiated in good faith. Plaintiff initiated this action without counsel, and thus 3 amendment is needed to conform the pleadings to law. Second, amendment is not futile because it 4 cannot be said that “no set of facts can be proved under the amendment to the pleadings that would 5 constitute a valid and sufficient claim or defense.” Miller v. Rykoff-Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 6 214 (9th Cir. 1988); see P Reply at 3–10 (arguing why leave to amend is not futile). Third, 7 Plaintiff has not previously amended his complaint. 8 Fourth, allowing amendment would not cause undue delay. In this Circuit, courts focus on 9 the timing in relation to the rest of the case to determine whether leave to amend should be 10 granted. See Big Bear Lodging Ass’n v. Snow Summit, Inc., 182 F.3d 1096, 1105 (9th Cir. 1999) 11 (“Because this litigation is still in its early stages, leave should be liberally granted unless 12 amendment would be futile.”); Defazio v. Hollister, Inc., 2008 WL 2825045, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 13 21, 2008) (“There is also no apparent prejudice to defendants in permitting the instant amendment. 14 Though this case’s origins date back over three years, this matter regrettably is still in its early 15 litigious stages.”). Here, the early stage of the litigation weighs in favor of amendment. No case 16 schedule has been set, no written discovery has been taken, no documents have been exchanged, 17 no initial disclosures have been served, and several Defendants have not even appeared despite 18 being served. See United States v. United Healthcare Ins. Co., 848 F.3d 1161, 1184 (9th Cir. 19 2016). 20 Fifth, leave to amend will not prejudice Defendants. In determining whether amendment 21 would result in prejudice, courts consider the timeliness of the amendment and whether it would 22 delay litigation. See Poling v. Morgan, 829 F.2d 882, 886–87 (9th Cir. 1987). Here, because the 23 case is still in the early stages of discovery, Defendants are not prejudiced by the proposed 24 amendment. See Leighton, 833 F.2d at 187–88 (“Given that this case is still at the discovery stage 25 with no trial date pending, nor has a pretrial conference been scheduled, there is no evidence that 26 [defendant] would be prejudiced by the timing of the proposed amendment.”). 27 Case No.: 5:20-cv-08808-EJD 1 For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs countermotion for leave to file a First 2 || Amended Complaint. This renders Defendants’ motion to dismiss moot. See Hynix v. 3 || Semiconductor Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., 2006 WL 3093812, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2006) (“In 4 || view of Rule 15(a)’s permissive standard, courts ordinarily defer consideration of challenges to the 5 merits of a proposed amended pleading until after leave to amend is granted and the amended 6 || pleading is filed.”). 7 I. CONCLUSION 8 The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's countermotion for leave to file a First Amended 9 |} Complaint and finds Defendant’s motion to dismiss MOOT. Plaintiff shall file his First Amended 10 || Complaint within 30 days of this Order.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Muhmoud v. City Of San Jose, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/muhmoud-v-city-of-san-jose-cand-2022.