Sanders v. City of National City

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: February 10, 2021
• Docket: 3:20-cv-00085
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHEENA SANDERS, an individual Case No.: 20-cv-85-AJB-BLM

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON THE PARTIES’ 13 RESPECTIVE RESPONSES TO v. THE COURT’S ORDER TO 14 SHOW CAUSE (Doc. No. 14) 15 CITY OF NATIONAL CITY; OFFICER SAKAMOTO; and DOES 1-10, 16

17 Defendants. 18 19

20 Before the Court are the parties’ respective responses to the Court’s Order to Show 21 Cause (“OSC”) (Doc. No. 14). (Doc. Nos. 15, 16.) In the OSC, the Court ordered Plaintiff 22 to show cause as to why her previously dismissed Monell claims based on ratification and 23 a failure to train should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. (Doc. No. 24 14 at 2.) Additionally, the Court ordered Defendants to show cause as to why their answer 25 should not be considered untimely. For the reasons set forth, the Court DISMISSES, 26 without leave to amend, Plaintiff’s previously dismissed Monell claims, and ACCEPTS 27 Defendants’ answer. 28 1 I. PLAINTIFF’S PREVIOUSLY DISMISSED CLAIMS 2 In response to the OSC, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a declaration explaining that after 3 the Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s ratification and failure to train Monell claims, he was 4 unsure whether he would have sufficient facts to amend those claims. (Doc. No. 16 at 2.) 5 Plaintiff’s counsel also attested that he understood that failure to amend by the Court’s 6 deadline would convert the prior dismissals to dismissals with prejudice. (Id.) Plaintiff now 7 requests to amend her complaint, but only as to the previously dismissed ratification claim. 8 Although leave to amend is “freely given when justice so requires,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 15(a), “futile amendments should not be permitted,” Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass’n v. 10 Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276, 1292 (9th Cir. 1983). Here, Plaintiff believes 11 that her proposed amended complaint sufficiently states a ratification claim because she 12 “identified the city manager and chief of police, who were the final policy makers for 13 National City at the time of the underlying incident.” (Doc. No. 16 at 2.) The Court’s prior 14 Order dismissing the ratification claim, however, noted additional factual deficiencies. (See 15 Doc. No. 11 at 5 (“Plaintiff makes no mention of who the alleged final policy maker is and 16 how such person ‘ratified (or will ratify)’ Defendant Officers’ acts in this case.).) 17 Apart from naming certain policymakers, the proposed amendment simply restates 18 the same conclusory allegations that the Court previously found to be insufficient. (See 19 Doc. No. 16 at 9–10.) Again, “[w]ithout more, Plaintiff’s allegations amount to a formulaic 20 recitation of the elements, and thus, are inadequate to state a Monell claim based on 21 ratification.” (Doc. No. 11 at 6.) Because the proposed amendment fails to address all of 22 the deficiencies raised in the prior Order, the Court finds that granting leave to amend in 23 this instance would be futile.1 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for leave 24 to amend and DISMISSES, without leave to amend, Plaintiff’s Monell claims based on 25 26 1 Moreover, Plaintiff failed to file a timely amended complaint—despite being granted the opportunity to 27 do so. And while the Court does not find any bad faith on the part of Plaintiff, her counsel understood that 28 failure to amend by the deadline would be consequential, but nonetheless elected not to file an amended 1 ratification and a failure to train. See Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass’n, 701 F.2d at 129; DCD 2 Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 188 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Wakeen v. Hoffman 3 House, Inc., 724 F.2d 1238, 1244 (7th Cir. 1983) (“It is not an abuse of discretion to refuse 4 a request to amend when the proffered amendment merely restates the same facts using 5 different language, or reasserts a claim previously determined.”)) 6 II. DEFENDANTS’ UNTIMELY ANSWER 7 In response to the OSC, Defendants’ counsel submitted a declaration explaining that 8 their failure to submit a timely answer was because his office was waiting for Plaintiff to 9 file an amended complaint, and also because he failed update his calendar with an answer 10 due date. (Doc. No. 15-1 at 3.) Defendants’ counsel only became aware of the need to file 11 an answer when Plaintiff’s counsel contacted his office. (Id.) Defendants’ counsel further 12 attests that Plaintiff raised no concerns over their filing of an answer, that the missed 13 deadline was a mistake, and that his office, at all times, acted in good faith. (Id. at 3–4.) 14 Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B), the Court may accept a late 15 filing when the moving party’s failure to meet the deadline was the result of “excusable 16 neglect.” According to the Ninth Circuit, “[t]his rule, like all the Federal Rules of Civil 17 Procedure, is to be liberally construed to effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases 18 are tried on the merits.” Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258–59 (9th 19 Cir. 2010) (internal quotations, citations, and alterations omitted.) Here, the Court finds 20 that Defendants’ failure to file a timely answer was the result of “excusable neglect” 21 because such failure was attributed to an unintentional calendaring oversight and the 22 reasonable assumption that Plaintiff was going to file an amended complaint. Thus, 23 considering Defendants’ showing of good cause and excusable neglect, and “to effectuate 24 the general purpose of seeing that cases are tried on the merits,” Ahanchian, 624 F.3d at 25 1259, the Court ACCEPTS Defendants’ answer. 26 // 27

28 2 As Plaintiff concedes that she is unable to amend the complaint with sufficient facts to support her failure 1 Il. CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES, without leave to amend, 3 || Plaintiff's Monell claims based on ratification and a failure to train, and ACCEPTS 4 || Defendants’ answer. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: February 10, 2021

8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28