Seeto v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: August 29, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00519
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4

5 RYNE M. SEETO, Case No. 2:25-cv-00519-CDS-NJK 6 Plaintiff(s),v. Order 7 LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE [Docket Nos. 18, 21] 8 DEPARTMENT, et al., 9 Defendant(s). 10 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. 11 Docket No. 21. No response was filed. Also pending before the Court is an order to show cause 12 why service should not be deemed effective and default not entered as to Defendant Las Vegas 13 Metropolitan Police Department (“LVMPD”). Docket No. 18. LVMPD filed a response. Docket 14 No. 23. The Court does not require a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. 15 I. LEAVE TO AMEND 16 The Court first addresses the motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. Docket 17 No. 21. Rule 15(a) provides that “[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so 18 requires,” and there is a strong public policy in favor of permitting amendment. Bowles v. Reade, 19 198 F.3d 752, 757 (9th Cir. 1999). Rule 15(a) is to be applied with “extreme liberality.” Eminence 20 Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). Under Rule 15(a), 21 courts consider various factors, including: (1) bad faith; (2) undue delay; (3) prejudice to the 22 opposing party; (4) futility of the amendment; and (5) whether the plaintiff has previously amended 23 the complaint. See id. at 1052. Not all of these factors carry equal weight and prejudice is the 24 “touchstone.” Id. Absent a showing of prejudice or a strong showing of any of the remaining 25 factors, there is a presumption that leave to amend should be granted. Id. 26 Leave to amend is warranted here. Most importantly, there is no prejudice to any defendant 27 by allowing amendment. No defendant has responded to the existing complaints and each will 28 have the opportunity to respond to the second amended complaint. The other factors do not, on 1 balance, warrant denial of leave to amend. There is no evidence of either bad faith or undue delay. 2 Although Plaintiff has previously amended the complaint, he has only done so once and is 3 proceeding pro se. Lastly, the Court declines to consider futility, as that is an issue better addressed 4 to a motion to dismiss. Underwood v. O’Reilly Auto Enterps., LLC, 342 F.R.D. 338, 346-47 (D. 5 Nev. 2022). 6 Accordingly, the Court will grant the motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. 7 II. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO DEFAULT 8 The Court next addresses the pending order to show cause. Docket No. 18. It has been 9 black letter law for decades that the service requirements are simply meant to provide “notice 10 reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of 11 the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Mullane v. Central Hanover 12 Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950). It has also been well-settled law for more than a century 13 that courts should not indulge ticky-tacky procedural arguments being advanced to evade the 14 courts’ jurisdiction despite defendants receiving reasonable notice of the lawsuit. See, e.g., 15 Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 397-98 (1914) (rejecting argument that slight misspelling of the 16 defendant’s name on summons rendered it ineffective). It is also common sense that such efforts 17 are especially disfavored when employed by sophisticated entities in suits brought by pro se 18 litigants. See, e.g., Smith v. Saribay, 2021 WL 1824292, at *2 n.5 (D. Nev. Apr. 29, 2021). 19 Particularly against this backdrop, the Court is unpersuaded by LVMPD’s position that it 20 properly “refused” service based on the contention that the Clerk’s Office failed to issue both an 21 original summons and a copy of the original.1 The Court would be inclined to find LVMPD has 22 defaulted. Nonetheless, the service at issue was made with respect to the initial complaint. See 23 Docket No. 12. In light of Plaintiff’s subsequent amendment to the complaint, a default entered 24 1 The Court will not resolve the arguments raised in LVMPD’s response given the 25 mootness of default. The Court notes, however, that LVMPD appears disingenuous in insisting it is not creating obstacles or engaging in a cat-and-mouse game for service attempted by a pro se 26 litigant when it goes on to indicate that its course of conduct is meant to preserve all “procedural defenses,” no matter how minor or technical. See Docket No. 23 at 3. LVMPD also appears to 27 suggest that procedural defects in the form of the summons must be cured to establish jurisdiction. See id. Not so. A defendant may waive arguments as to procedural defects in the summons by 28 simply responding to the complaint without raising those defects. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(1). as to the initial complaint would be moot at this juncture. See, e.g., United States v. Proceeds from the Sale of a Condo. Located at the Ritz Carlton in Los Angeles, Cal., 2016 WL 11772212, at *1 3] (C.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2016) (collecting cases). 4 Accordingly, the Court will discharge the order to show cause as moot. LVMPD is urged 5] moving forward to avoid overly technical arguments so that cases can advance in the ordinary course. 7| TI. CONCLUSION 8 For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS the motion for leave to file a second 9] amended complaint. The Clerk’s Office is INSTRUCTED to file the second amended complaint 10] on the docket.’ The Clerk’s Office is also INSTRUCTED to issues summons for each of the 11] defendants named in the second amended complaint. In addition, the Court RESETS the deadline 12]| to effectuate service to November 3, 2025. 13 Given the circumstances above, the Court also provides an opportunity for LVMPD to 14]| waive additional service efforts. No later than September 16, 2025, LVMPD must file a notice as 15|| to whether it waives service of summons and the second amended complaint. If service is waived, 16] LVMPD will have 60 days to respond to the second amended complaint from the date of the 17] issuance of this order. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: August 29, 2025 20 “a — Nancy J. K 21 United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 2 The motion and the proposed second amended complaint have been combined into one PDF file. See Docket No. 21. The second amended complaint is specifically at pages 5-17 of 28] Docket No. 21.