Rubalcava v. City Of San Jose

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 LIONEL RUBALCAVA, Case No. 20-cv-04191-BLF

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 9 v. MOTION TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND VACATING 10 CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al., HEARING ON MOTION 11 Defendants. [Re: ECF 110]

12 13 This order addresses Plaintiff Lionel Rubalcava’s motion for leave to file an amended 14 complaint. See Mot. for Leave, ECF 110. The Court finds the motion to be suitable for decision 15 without oral argument and therefore the hearing set for January 6, 2022 is VACATED. The 16 motion is GRANTED for the reasons discussed below. 17 Rubalcava seeks leave to file an amended complaint to correct errors recently discovered 18 by his counsel and to omit certain parties and claims in light of the Court’s prior order addressing 19 Defendants’ motions to dismiss. The proposed amended complaint omits seven Defendants, 20 including the County of Santa Clara and six individual San Jose Police Department (“SJPD”) 21 officers; omits four § 1983 claims; and alters a limited number of factual allegations. The 22 proposed amended complaint does not add new claims or parties. The motion is not opposed by 23 the City of San Jose or the individual SJPD officers named as defendants (collectively, “City 24 Defendants”). The motion is opposed by the County of Santa Clara and County investigators 25 Douglas Kaleas and Brian Geer (collectively, “County Defendants”). 26 The Court evaluates Rubalcava’s motion under the good cause standard set forth in Federal 27 Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), because the deadline for amendment pursuant to Federal Rule of 1 cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment. Johnson vy. 2 Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). “[T]he existence or degree of 3 || prejudice to the party opposing the modification might supply additional reasons to deny a 4 || motion.” Id. However, “the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking 5 modification.” Jd. 6 The Court finds that Rubalcava has shown good cause to file the proposed amended 7 || complaint. As noted above, some amendments are sought to correct errors in the pleading only 8 || recently discovered by counsel. Other amendments are for the purpose of cleaning up the pleading 9 to omit numerous parties and claims that Rubalcava no longer seeks to pursue. The Court 10 || perceives no prejudice to any party in allowing these amendments. 11 The County Defendants contend that they will be prejudiced if the motion is granted, 12 || because although the proposed complaint omits the Monell claim against the County, it does not 5 13 omit every allegation of misconduct by the County. The County Defendants speculate that by 14 || retaining those allegations, Rubalcava improperly seeks to expand the scope of permissible 15 discovery, and they asks that the Court condition amendment on the striking of certain allegations. 16 || Inreply, Rubalcava asserts that the allegations in question are relevant to his narrative of the 3 17 events giving rise to his claims, and that he has no intention of abusing the discovery process. 18 On this record, the Court finds no basis to conclude that Rubalcava will seek to abuse the 19 discovery process or otherwise engage in improper conduct relating to the retention of the subject 20 allegations in his pleading. Moreover, an opposition brief is not the appropriate vehicle for 21 seeking affirmative relief such as the striking of matter from a pleading. 22 ORDER 23 Rubalcava’s motion for leave to amend is GRANTED. He shall file the proposed amended 24 || complaint by November 12, 2021. The hearing set for January 6, 2022 is VACATED. 25 | han 26 Dated: October 29, 2021 mip) BETH LABSON FREEMAN 27 United States District Judge 28