Stephen Chiari v. City of San Mateo, et al.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: November 3, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-06780
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 STEPHEN CHIARI, Case No. 24-cv-06780-MMC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 9 v. MOTION TO AMEND; VACATING HEARING 10 CITY OF SAN MATEO, et al.,

Defendants. 11

12 13 Before the Court is plaintiff Stephen Chiari's Motion, filed September 23, 2025, "for 14 Leave to File First Amended Complaint." Defendants City of San Mateo and Officer 15 Leroy Becker have filed opposition, to which plaintiff has replied. Having read and 16 considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court 17 deems the matter appropriate for decision on the parties' respective written submissions, 18 VACATES the hearing scheduled for November 7, 2025, and rules as follows. 19 In the instant action, plaintiff asserts federal and state law claims arising from his 20 arrest by defendant Leroy Becker ("Officer Becker") in 2018 on "a felony charge of 21 operating a boat under the influence and causing injury" (see Compl. ¶ 13) and the 22 subsequent filing by the San Mateo District Attorney's Office in 2019 of "misdemeanor 23 charges" for "reckless operation of a boat and operating a boat while impaired" (see 24 Compl. ¶ 15), which prosecution resulted in a jury's "fully acquit[ing] [p]laintiff of all 25 charges" (see id.) Among the six Causes of Action set forth in the Complaint is a claim 26 titled "42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Malicious Prosecution – Against Defendant Becker," which 27 claim is based on an allegation that Officer Becker, acting out of "personal animus toward 1 who is an attorney (see Compl. ¶ 37),1 and that the criminal charges "were primarily filed 2 based on the strength of the false and untruthful assertions contained in Officer Becker's 3 police report" (see Compl. ¶ 15). 4 By the instant motion, plaintiff seeks leave to amend for purposes of adding a 5 claim titled "42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Deliberate Fabrication of Evidence – Against Defendant 6 Becker," by which he seeks to allege said defendant "deliberately fabricated evidence 7 that was used to criminally charge and prosecute [p]laintiff." (See Proposed First 8 Amended Complaint for Damages ¶ 43.)2 9 Under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a "court should freely give 10 leave [to amend] when justice so requires." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Under Rule 16, 11 however, if a court has issued a scheduling order that sets a deadline to "amend the 12 pleadings," see Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3)(A), such deadline "controls the course of the 13 action unless the court modifies it," see Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(d), upon a showing of "good 14 cause," see Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (providing "[a] schedule may be modified only for 15 good cause"). Good cause exists to amend a scheduling order if the existing schedule 16 "cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension." See 17 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal 18 quotation and citation omitted). 19 Where a party seeks to amend a pleading after the deadline set forth in a 20 scheduling order, said party "must first show good cause for amendment under Rule 21 16(b), [and] then, if good cause be shown, the party must demonstrate that amendment 22 [is] proper under Rule 15." See id. at 608 (internal quotation and citation omitted). 23 Here, as defendants point out, the Court, in its Amended Pretrial Preparation 24 Order, set April 10, 2025, as the "deadline to amend pleadings." (See Amended Pretrial 25 1 According to plaintiff, Officer Becker was the "lead Investigating Officer" (see 26 Compl. ¶ 13) and "learned in the early stages of his investigation that [p]laintiff was an attorney" (see Compl. ¶ 37). 27 1 Preparation Order, filed April 10, 2025, at 1.) Consequently, the threshold issue is 2 whether plaintiff has shown good cause exists to extend the deadline to amend the 3 pleadings by more than five months. In that regard, plaintiff's counsel states he 4 determined, after deposing the deputy district attorney who tried the criminal matter, that, 5 with respect to the existing claim for malicious prosecution, "viable defense[s]" might 6 exist, namely "the existence of probable cause" and a "presumption of prosecutorial 7 independence," defenses, he states, would not apply to a claim for deliberate fabrication. 8 (See Schwaiger Decl. ¶ 3.) 9 "To prevail on a § 1983 claim of deliberate fabrication, a plaintiff must prove that 10 (1) the defendant official deliberately fabricated evidence and (2) the deliberate 11 fabrication caused the plaintiff's deprivation of liberty." Spencer v Peters, 857 F.3d 789, 12 798 (9th Cir. 2017). Here, plaintiff does not contend that, after the deadline to amend 13 had passed, he learned of any new facts to support either of the two elements of a 14 deliberate fabrication claim. Cf. Fru-Con Construction Corp., 2006 WL 3733815, at *5 15 (E.D. Cal. December 15, 2006) (finding counterclaimant acted with diligence in seeking to 16 amend to add two new parties, as alter egos of counterdefendant, where "it was only 17 through discovery that [such counterclaimant] learned the details on which it now base[d] 18 its amended counterclaim"). Instead, plaintiff acknowledges the proposed new claim is 19 not based on any "additional facts," but, rather, on "the same, identical facts" alleged in 20 the Complaint. (See Pl.s' Mot. at 6:12.5-14.) Indeed, plaintiff relied on those facts to 21 support his malicious prosecution claim. (See Compl. ¶ 37 (alleging Officer Becker 22 "authored false arrest reports in an effort to secure a conviction").) 23 Under the circumstances, the Court finds plaintiff has not been diligent in seeking 24 to pursue a claim for deliberate fabrication. Although plaintiffs assert defendants would 25 not be prejudiced by the proposed amendment, the question of whether defendants 26 would or would not be prejudiced by the proposed amendment is not relevant to the 27 question of whether plaintiff has diligently pursued his claims. See Johnson, 975 F.2d at 1 modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is 2 upon the moving party's reasons for seeking modification," and "[i]f that party was not 3 || diligent, the inquiry should end’). 4 Accordingly, the motion to amend is hereby DENIED. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 || Dated: November 3, 2025 ; . MAX{NE M. CHESNEY 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28