Navarrete v. City of Kent

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 CRISTIAN NAVARRETE, CASE NO. 2:22-cv-1431 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 9 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND v. 10 CITY OF KENT, a municipal corporation, 11 and JAMES SHERWOOD,

12 Defendants. 13

14 INTRODUCTION 15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Cristian Navarrete’s motion to amend. 16 Dkt. No. 21. Defendants City of Kent and James Sherwood do not oppose Plaintiff’s motion. 17 Dkt. No. 23. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion and ORDERS 18 Plaintiff to file his amended complaint by June 12, 2023. 19 BACKGROUND 20 Plaintiff brings this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Defendants violated his 21 Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Dkt. No. 1 at 21. Plaintiff also alleges Defendants are 22 liable for malicious prosecution and false arrest. Id. at 22. Trial is set to begin on March 18, 23 2024, and the parties must complete discovery by November 20, 2023. Dkt. No. 20. Plaintiff 24 filed his motion seeking leave to amend on April 3, 2023—the final day to timely seek 1 amendment under the Court’s March 6, 2023, scheduling order.1 Plaintiff seeks to add “newly 2 discovered facts to support another avenue of municipal liability under Monell” and to remove 3 allegations against Jennifer Phillips and King County, whom the Court previously dismissed as 4 defendants in this lawsuit. Dkt. No. 21 at 7; see also Dkt. No. 18. 5 DISCUSSION 6 I. Legal standard at issue. 7 In general, courts “should freely give leave [to amend a pleading] when justice so 8 requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). As a result, courts should grant leave to amend “[i]n the absence 9 of any apparent or declared reason—such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part 10 of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies . . . , undue prejudice to the opposing party by 11 virtue of allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of amendment[.]” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 12 178, 182 (1962). Prejudice carries the greatest weight in the Court’s analysis. See Eminence

13 Cap., LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). “Absent prejudice, or a strong 14 showing of any of the remaining Foman factors, there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in 15 favor of granting leave to amend.” Id. 16 II. Leave to amend is appropriate under Rule 15(a). 17 Nothing in the record shows Plaintiff moved to amend with undue delay or acted in bad 18 faith. Plaintiff moved to amend after receiving Defendant’s discovery responses including 19 unknown facts that, in Plaintiff’s view, support Monell liability. Plaintiff filed his motion within 20 the deadline to amend set by the Court. Amendment is not futile, and Plaintiff has not previously 21 amended his complaint. Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff’s amendment, nor do they argue they 22

23 1 Plaintiff argues leave to amend is appropriate under Rule 16(b). But, since Plaintiff moved to amend within the deadline set by the scheduling order, the Court does not analyze whether there 24 is good cause under Rule 16(b). 1 will be prejudiced in any way by this amendment. The Court finds no prejudice given that the 2 trial is nine months away and discovery may continue until November 2023. 3 Accordingly, having considered Plaintiff’s motion, the briefing of the parties, and the

4 remainder of the record, Plaintiff’s motion to amend is GRANTED. Plaintiff must file his 5 amended complaint by June 12, 2023. 6 7 Dated this 6th day of June, 2023. 8 A 9 Jamal N. Whitehead United States District Judge 10

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24