(PS) Mandujano v. Lester

District Court, E.D. California·Decided April 26, 2024·No. 2:23-cv-02385·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 YANAH MANDUJANO, No. 2:23-cv-02385-DJC-CKD (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 KATHERINE LESTER, ET AL., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On October 19, 2023, Plaintiff, proceeding without counsel, filed his claims against 18 Defendants. On January 18, 2024, Defendants Rob Bonta, Katherine Lester, Sacramento Police 19 Department, and Unnamed Sacramento Police Officer filed motions to dismiss. (ECF Nos. 5, 8.) 20 On January 22, 2024, Defendant City of Davis filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 9.) Defendants 21 Rob Bonta, Katherine Lester, Sacramento Police Department, Unnamed Sacramento Police 22 Officer, and City of Davis (hereinafter referred collectively as “Defendants”) noticed their 23 motions to dismiss for a March 6, 2024, hearing before the undersigned.1 24 On February 27, 2024, the Court issued an order vacating the March 6, 2024, hearing due 25 to Plaintiff’s failure to file a timely opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motions to 26 dismiss. (ECF No. 14.) The Court further informed parties that “[a]fter the expiration of the 27 1 This action proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and E.D. Cal. 28 Local Rule 302(c)(21). 1 deadlines (…), the court will decide the matter on the record and written briefing only.” (Id. at 2.) 2 On March 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed his opposition to the motions. (ECF No. 15.) On the 3 same day, Plaintiff also filed a First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 16.) On March 6, 2024, 4 Plaintiff filed an amended opposition to the motions to dismiss (ECF No. 17.) Defendants 5 Katherine Lester, Sacramento Police Department, Unnamed Sacramento Police Officer, and City 6 of Davis filed their replies to Plaintiff’s oppositions. (ECF Nos. 18, 19.) 7 On March 22, 2024, Defendant Rob Bonta filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended 8 Complaint and noticed it for a May 1, 2024, hearing before the undersigned. (ECF No. 20.) No 9 further filings have been filed. 10 Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 5, 8, 9) 11 Pursuant to the Court’s February 27, 2024, order, these motions to dismiss have been fully 12 briefed and are taken under submission. No further briefing is required. 13 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (ECF No. 16.) 14 Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs amendments to pleadings. Rule 15 15 provides that a complaint may be amended once as a matter of course within 21 days after 16 serving it or 21 days after service of a responsive pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 15(a)(1) (A), 17 (B). Rule 15 further provides that “[i]n all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with 18 the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. The Court should freely give leave when 19 justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 15(a)(2). As a general matter, courts apply Rule 15(a) 20 with “extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th 21 Cir.2003). Here, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on March 5, 2024, well over 21 days 22 after the service of the motions to dismiss. Moreover, there is no showing that the opposing party 23 provided Plaintiff written consent to file Plaintiff’s first amended complaint. Accordingly, the 24 Court construes Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint as a motion for leave to file an amended 25 complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2). 26 The Court will further construe Defendant Rob Bonta’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 20) 27 as an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint and vacate the May 28 1, 2024, hearing. The Court will decide the motion for leave to file an amended complaint on the 1 | written briefs. No further briefing is required. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The May 1, 2024, hearing on Defendant Rob Bonta’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 4 20) is VACATED. 5 | Dated: April 25, 2024 a, 1 fh / aie ll 6 CAROLYNK. DELANEY 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 4, mand2385.23 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

(PS) Mandujano v. Lester, (E.D. Cal. 2024).

(PS) Mandujano v. Lester ((PS) Mandujano v. Lester) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related