Pauu v. County of San Diego
This text of Pauu v. County of San Diego (Pauu v. County of San Diego) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.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 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROWDY PAUU, Case No.: 23-CV-961 TWR (NLS)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER (1) GRANTING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED 14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; WILLIAM COMPLAINT, AND (2) DENYING GORE, in his individual capacity; DAVID 15 AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S MOTION LOVEJOY, in his individual capacity; TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S 16 JONATHON YOUNG, in his individual COMPLAINT capacity; DOES 1-25, 17 Defendants. (ECF Nos. 6, 16) 18 19 Presently before the Court are Plaintiff Rowdy Pauu’s Motion for Leave to File First 20 Amended Complaint (“Mot. for Leave to Amend,” ECF No. 16) and Defendants County 21 of San Diego, William Gore, David Lovejoy, and Jonathon Young’s Motion to Dismiss 22 Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Mot. to Dismiss,” ECF No. 6). Having carefully reviewed the 23 Parties’ submissions and relevant law, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to 24 File First Amended Complaint and DENIES as moot Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for 25 the reasons stated below. 26 BACKGROUND 27 On May 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging Fourteenth 28 Amendment violation against Defendants Lovejoy and Young for using excessive force; 1 against Defendant Gore and Doe Defendants for failure to properly train, supervise, and 2 discipline the sheriff deputies in their command; and against the County of San Diego for 3 maintaining unlawful policies, customs, and practices. (See generally Compl. ¶¶ 67–83, 4 86–89, 10, 103–10.) On June 30, 2023, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s 5 Complaint, (see ECF No. 6), and on August 31, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Opposition, (see 6 ECF No. 12). On September 14, 2023, Defendants filed their Reply in support of the 7 Motion to Dismiss. (See ECF No. 13.) 8 On October 3, 2023, the Court ordered the Parties to file supplemental briefing 9 because they did not adequately address whether excessive force cases fall under the Fourth 10 or Fourteenth Amendment. (See generally ECF No. 14.) Because Plaintiff’s Complaint 11 did not mention the Fourth Amendment, the Court further noted that Plaintiff would need 12 to move to amend if he believed the Fourth Amendment applies to his claims. (Id.) The 13 Parties have now supplemented their arguments, (see ECF Nos. 15, 17), and Plaintiff has 14 filed his Motion for Leave to Amended, (see ECF No. 16). In their Supplemental Briefing, 15 Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend. (See ECF No. 17 at 5.) 16 LEGAL STANDARD 17 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), a plaintiff may amend his or her 18 complaint once as a matter of course within specified time limits. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). 19 “In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written 20 consent or the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” 21 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 22 “Rule 15’s policy of favoring amendments to pleadings should be applied with 23 ‘extreme liberality,’” United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981) (citing 24 Rosenberg Brothers & Co. v. Arnold, 283 F.2d 406 (9th Cir. 1960) (per curiam)), and its 25 application is committed to “the sound discretion of the trial court.” Id. (citing PSG Co. v. 26 Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 417 F.2d 659, 664 (9th Cir. 1969), cert. 27 denied, 397 U.S. 918 (1970)). The Supreme Court has cautioned that courts generally 28 should grant leave to amend absent a showing of “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive 1 on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously 2 allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, 3 [or] futility of amendment.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). The non-moving 4 party bears the burden of showing why the Court should not grant leave to amend. 5 Genentech, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 127 F.R.D. 529, 530–31 (N.D. Cal. 1989). 6 ANALYSIS 7 Plaintiff seeks to amend his Complaint to (1) add a Fourth Amendment 8 unconstitutional seizure claim; (2) “more precisely allege that either the Fourth or 9 Fourteenth amendment may apply to Plaintiff’s excessive force claim;” (3) “include new 10 facts now known to Plaintiff, including the number of times defendants shot at or in the 11 direction of the Plaintiff and the indiscriminate nature of the shootings;” and (4) “lay out 12 the facts and separate claims to minimize the confusion when analyzing the case for 13 qualified immunity.” (ECF 16-1 at 16–19; Mot. for Leave to Amend. at 2.) Defendants 14 oppose Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend as futile because accidental contact involves 15 no seizure and therefore is not actionable under the Fourth Amendment. (ECF No. 17 at 16 5.) 17 The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s proposed amendment will neither cause delay 18 nor prejudice, nor is it sought in bad faith or futile. Plaintiff has diligently prosecuted this 19 case, and there has been no undue delay in seeking this amendment. This case is in the 20 earliest stages of litigation, and Plaintiff filed his Motion for Leave to Amend within the 21 time limit set by the Court. Further, Plaintiff is not seeking this amendment in bad faith; 22 instead, it was in response to the Court’s October 3, 2023 Order. Plaintiff states that the 23 amendment will clarify whether the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment applies to Plaintiff’s 24 excessive force claim, minimize confusion when analyzing the case for qualified immunity, 25 and include clarifying facts regarding the unreasonable nature of Defendants’ action, 26 including the exact number of shots fired by Defendants Lovejoy and Young. Moreover, 27 the amendment will not prejudice Defendants because there has been no Early Neutral 28 Evaluation or Case Management Conference in this case, and Plaintiff has not added new 1 ||claims or defendants. Finally, a proposed amendment is futile only when “no set of facts 2 ||can be proved under the amendment to the pleadings that would constitute a valid and 3 sufficient claim or defense.” Miller v. Rykoff-Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 4 ||1988). Plaintiff makes many merit-based arguments as to why, under the facts of this case, 5 there is a good claim for seizure under the Fourth Amendment. (Mot. to Amend at 5-9.) 6 ||“Granting leave to amend does not necessarily mean that the underlying allegations 7 || ultimately have merit,” FlatWorld Interactives LLC v. Apple Inc., 12-CV-1956-JSW, 2013 8 || WL 6406437, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2013), and “[d]enial of leave to amend for futility 9 rare since Courts typically defer consideration on the merits until after an amended 10 pleading has been filed.” Lundstrom v. Young, No. 318CV02856GPCMSB, 2019 WL 11 2341374, at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 3, 2019) (first citing Green Valley Corp. v. Caldo Oil Co., 12 || No. 09-CV-04028-LHK, 2011 WL 1465883, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2011); then citing 13 || Allen v. Bayshore Mall, No. 12-cv-02368-JST, 2013 WL 6441504, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 14 2013)).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Pauu v. County of San Diego, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pauu-v-county-of-san-diego-casd-2023.