Steinmeyer v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 Case No.: 22-cv-01213-DMS RANDALL HENRI STEINMEYER, an

11 individual, ORDER VACATING ORAL 12 Plaintiff, ARGUMENT; DENYING v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 13 LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, a Delaware 15 corporation; GEORGE MAHA, an individual; HONORABLE GARY 16 BUBIS, as Judge of Superior Court of San 17 Diego; and ROB BONTA, as Attorney General of California, 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 Plaintiff moves for leave to file an amended complaint after Defendants declined to 22 stipulate to allow Plaintiff to do so. Plaintiff has amended his complaint once before and 23 now seeks to amend a second time. A hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion is currently scheduled 24 for Friday April 21, 2023. The Court VACATES the hearing scheduled for April 21, 2023, 25 and DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. 27 In 2017, Plaintiff was deemed the biological father of a minor child in an action in 28 San Diego Superior Court before Judge Gary Bubis (“Bubis”). (First Amended Compl. 1 (“FAC”) ¶ 71, ECF No. 4). In March 2017, Defendant Laboratory Corporation of America 2 Holdings (“Labcorp”) administered a “motherless 2 person test[]” pursuant to a state court 3 order, which Plaintiff alleges violated the requirements of the California Family Code. 4 (FAC ¶¶ 53, 141.) Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants Labcorp and George Maha 5 (“Maha”) lied to Plaintiff about the validity of the paternity test they administered, (FAC 6 ¶ 74), and Defendant Maha “caused or otherwise induced a judge . . . to hide the material 7 DNA and therefore the paternity evidence.” (FAC ¶ 185.) The paternity test showed that 8 Plaintiff was the father of the child. (FAC ¶ 71). Accordingly, San Diego Superior Court 9 issued several Income Withholding Orders against Plaintiff for child support between 2018 10 and 2022. (See Def. Bubis Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. D, ECF No. 8-2.) 11 Plaintiff filed this action on August 18, 2022 (ECF No. 1) and filed the FAC on 12 November 8, 2022. (See generally FAC.) Plaintiff brought various state law causes of 13 actions against Defendants Labcorp and Maha, including alleged violations of California 14 Family Code § 7552.5(a). (FAC ¶¶ 238–43; Pl.’s Mem. in Supp. of Ex Parte Appl. for 15 TRO (“Pl.’s Mem.”) at 12–13, ECF No. 37-1.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Labcorp 16 and Maha have concealed some portion of the paternity test or generated fictitious test 17 results. (FAC ¶¶ 196, 203, 205–08.) Plaintiff also brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 18 against Defendants Bubis and the Attorney General of California Rob Bonta (“Bonta”). 19 (FAC ¶¶ 279–86.) Defendants Labcorp, Maha, Bubis, and Bonta have filed motions to 20 dismiss. (See ECF Nos. 6, 8, 9, 36.) The motions to dismiss are now fully briefed and 21 pending before the Court. Further, the Court sua sponte issued an Order for Plaintiff to 22 Show Cause why his claim against Defendant Bonta should not be dismissed for lack of 23 subject matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 34.) Plaintiff timely responded. (ECF No. 40.) The 24 matter is now pending resolution of the Court. 25 On March 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended 26 Complaint. (ECF No. 35.) Plaintiff filed this motion after three of the four Motions to 27 Dismiss currently pending were already fully briefed and after the Court moved sua sponte 28 to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Bonta for lack of jurisdiction. 3 A. Hearing 4 Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 35) is 5 now fully briefed. The Court finds this matter suitable for decision without oral argument 6 pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). Accordingly, the hearing is VACATED, and 7 Motion is DENIED for the reasons explained below. 8 B. Legal Standard 9 A court may decline to grant leave to amend if there is “evidence of ‘undue delay, 10 bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies 11 by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of 12 allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of amendment . . . .’” Sonoma Cnty. Ass’n of 13 Retired Emps. v. Sonoma County, 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Foman v. 14 Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). “A district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is 15 ‘particularly broad’ where the plaintiff has previously amended.” Salameh v. Tarsadia 16 Hotel, 726 F.3d 1124, 1133 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe v. 17 United States, 90 F.3d 351, 355 (9th Cir. 1996)). 18 C. Discussion 19 Defendants have spent considerable time and cost defending against the First 20 Amended Complaint—the current operative complaint. All named defendants have moved 21 to dismiss and their motions are now fully briefed and under submission. It would unduly 22 prejudice all Defendants to allow Plaintiff to file an amended complaint at this stage and 23 would cause Defendants to accrue additional cost to defend against the new complaint. It 24 would also unduly delay the resolution of this matter. Plaintiff has not convincingly 25 explained why he should be able to file an amended complaint at this stage. 26 Nor does Plaintiff provide a convincing explanation for why granting leave to amend 27 at this stage would not unduly prejudice Defendants. Plaintiff states that it would not 28 prejudice Defendants because it was their “active illegal conduct that created the need for 1 ||the Amendment.” (PI.’s Mem. at 5, ECF No. 35-4.) But whether Defendants’ conduct is 2 illegal is an issue for this Court to resolve and is not responsive to the question of whether 3 || Plaintiff's proposed amendment would prejudice Defendants. In his Reply, Plaintiff argues 4 || that “there can be no prejudice . . . because the amendment takes place before scheduling 5 || order or even formal discovery.” (PI.’s Reply to Defs. Labcorp & Maha’s Opp. at 12, ECF 6 ||No. 49.) But neither discovery nor a scheduling order is necessary for the Court to find 7 a proposed amendment would unduly prejudice Defendants. 8 If there are any surviving causes of action or if the Court grants leave to amend after 9 ||ruling on the Motions to Dismiss currently pending, Plaintiff may file an amended 10 ||}complaint at that time. 1] HI. HEARING ON DEFENDANT BONTA’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND 12 THE COURT’S SUA SPONTE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 13 Defendant Bonta’s Motion to Dismiss and the Court’s sua sponte Order to Show 14 || Cause with regard to jurisdiction are now fully briefed. A hearing on these matters 1s 15 currently scheduled for Friday April 21, 2023. The Court finds these matters suitable for 16 decision without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). Accordingly, the 17 || hearing is VACATED, and the matters are now under submission. 19 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS the following: 20 1. The hearing scheduled for Friday April 21, 2023 is VACATED in its entirety. 21 2. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint is DENIED. 22 24 25 || Dated: April 17, 2023 26 , Vine Yn.